High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. K. Varma, G. G. Sohani
SITARAM S/o SHIVPRASAD - Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SECIETIES, M.P., BHOPAL - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 614 Of 1984
Decided On : 03/04/1986
(2) Natural Justice-rules of-opportunity for personal hearing and for discussion-when to be given.
In the instant case, no complex and difficult questions requiring familiarity with technical problems base been pointed out so as to make it an appropriate case requiring personal hearing. As such it cannot be contended that the opportunity given to the Board to show-cause, was not reasonable. AIR 1971 SC 862 distinguished. [Para 10]
(3) Co-operative Societies Act, 7960 (M.P.) - S. 53 (1)-prior consultation with the Reserve Bank-is mandatory.
When only a copy of show cause notice was sent to the Reserve Bank.
Held: Consultation with the Reserve Bank previous to the order of super-session means an effective and meaningful consultation, which is possible only when the entire relevant material of the case including the petitioner's reply showing cause why the committee should not be superseded is placed before the Reserve Bank. Otherwise the requirement of consultation would be reduced to a mere empty formality if mere copy of the show-cause notice is sent to the Reserve Bank without any further material relevant for consideration. [Para 11]
(4) Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (M.P.) - S. 53 (1)-super-session of a Co-operative Bank-charges relating to previous Board of Directors-irrelevant material in show cause notice and non-application of mind-in such circumstances and with such material cannot be used for super-session of a Cooperative Bank.
The show cause notice alleging deliberate design on the part of the Chairman to have Director 'wife of he Chairman on the staff Committee' when the Chairman had been authorized to constitute the said Committee by the Board and the Board thereafter, ratified the decision of the Chairman the finding in the order of super-session is that the charge is proved. This indicates non-application of mind. [Para 14]
If the irrelevant charges and the findings reached without application of mind were to be excluded, it cannot be said that the respondent-Joint Registrar would still have reached the same subjective satisfaction so as to pass an order of super-session. In the circumstances the order of super-session is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed. [Para 17]
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India" whereby the petitioner, who is an elected Director of the Citizens urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. , has sought quashing of the show-cause notice dated 20-2-1984 {annexure H) and the order of supersession dated 28-5-1984 (Annexure J ).
( 2 ) THE facts leading to this petition briefly stated are as under : the Citizens Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. is a Co-operative Society registered under Section 9 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 20-6-1974. The working of the said bank is regulated by its bye-laws (Annexure A to the petition ). According to the bye-law 17, the affairs of the Bank are to be conducted by a Board of directors, consisting of 16 members of who 12 are the elected representatives of the share-holders of the Bank, The term of the office of the Board of directors is three years, according to Section 49 (7a) of the Act and the bye-law 17. The Board of Directors elects from amongst the members, a Chairman and a Vice Chairman.
( 3 ) THE election of the previous Board of Directors had taken place on 4-7-1979 and the term of its office consequently expired on 4-7-1982. According to sub-section (8) of Section 49 of the Act, it is obligatory for the Board to hold election of an incoming Board prior to the expiration of its term and if the Board fails to conduct such election and does not hand-over charge on expiration of its term of three years all the members of the Board are deemed to have vacated their seats and the Registrar has to assume charge till the next elections are held. In the instant case, the Board which was elected on 4-7-1979 failed to take steps, for holding elections of the new Board before the expiry of its term and consequently on the expiry of the term of three years, the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhopal (respondent No. 2) exercising powers under Section 49 (8) of the Act, by order dated 1-9-1982 assumed charge of the Bank and directed Shri V. D. Dixit, Asstt. Registrar (respondent no. 3) to look after the work till the new Board took over charge.
( 4 ) THE Asstt. Registrar (respondent No. 3) remained in charge of the bank on behalf of the Registrar from 1-9-1982 to 30-8-1983 on which date consequent on the election of the Directors held on 28-8-1983, the newly elected board of Directors took over charge of the Bank. In the newly elected Board of Directors, out of the 12 elected members, four of them were elected as directors for the first time while the remaining eight were also on the previous board of Directors.
( 5 ) IT appears that certain complaints were made to the Registrar about the working of the Bank during the period 1-9-1982 to 30-8-1983 when the registrar (respondent No. 1) was in charge of the Bank and was conducting its affairs through respondent No. 3 who was looking after the management of the Bank on his behalf. The Registrar by his order dated 12-8-1983, directed an inquiry to be held into the working of the Bank under Section 59 of the Act and authorized the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, District Indore, to conduct the said inquiry. The Deputy Registrar commenced the inquiry on 1-2-1984 and after completing the same, submitted his report dated 13-2-1984 to the Registrar.
( 6 ) THE Joint Registrar-respondent No. 2 issued on 20-2-1984 a show-cause notice (Annexured) to the Board of Directors and to the individual directors, stating that during the course of the inquiry it was found that the Board of Directors had failed to comply with the directives of the Reserve Bank of india and the Co-operative Department and had committed serious breaches of the provisions and bye-laws of the Bank and calling upon the Board to show cause why the Board of Directors of the Bank should not be superseded under Section 53 (i) of the Act for the reasons set out in the said show-cause notice.
( 7 ) THE Board of Directors filed its deta
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.