Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, J.
District Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Mydt. (Registered), Datia and others v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 5273 of 2014 (Gwalior);
Decided on 19.12.2014
(2) Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (M.P.) -- Ss.48-AA and 50-A -- presumption about repeal -- these two provisions on same subject -- by implication -- already existing section 50-A cannot be treated as repealed -- because later inserted section 48-AA does not provide repealing provision.
It is argued by the petitioners that section 48-AA is a later provision dealing with the same aspect and, therefore, earlier provision (section 50-A) must be treated as impliedly repealed. [Para 13
Held : This is settled in law that there is a presumption against a repeal by implication and the reason of this rule is based on the theory that the Legislature while enacting a provision has complete knowledge of existing provision on the same subject matter, and therefore, when it does not provide a repealing provision, it gives out an intention not to repeal the existing legislation. AIR 1963 SC 1561, (2003)7 SCC 389 and (1997)1 SCC 450 referred to. [Para 13
(3) Interpretation of Statutes -- principle of -- two provisions on same subject matter -- presumption about repeal -- by implication -- earlier existing provision cannot be treated as repealed -- because later inserted provision does not provide repealing provision. [Para 13
(4) Natural Justice -- applicability of principle -- statute silent about observance of principle of natural justice -- where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected -- such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance of principle of natural justice -- while no provision of hearing under section 50-A(2) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Held : The principles of natural justice need to be read into section 50-A(2). Thus, both the sections can co-exist and they are required to be harmoniously construed. This is trite that a statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. [Para 15
In view of aforesaid analysis, it is clear that the Registrar was required to follow the principles of natural justice before declaring the seat as vacant. (1981)1 SCC 664 and (1994)4 SCC 328 referred to.
[Para 16
(5) Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (M.P.) -- Ss.50-A(2) and 48-AA, proviso -- powers of Registrar -- member of Board of Directors of Bank -- without providing reasonable hearing opportunity to him -- cannot be declared disqualified.
Held : Undoubtedly, section 48-AA was inserted later on. section 48-AA (1) makes it clear that the Legislature intended to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. This section makes it clear that if a member suffers from any of disqualifications specified in the Act or Rules, it is the duty of the Board of Directors of the society to disqualify such member. However, proviso makes it clear that this can be done after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. If the society fails to take action within two months, the power is vested with the Registrar to disqualify such member by passing an order in writing after giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, the principles of natural justice are embodied in section 48-AA. [Para 14
(6) Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (M.P.) -- Ss.48-AA and 50-A(2) -- scope of powers under section 50-A(2) -- proceedings initiated by society under section 48-AA -- Registrar has no jurisdiction to initiate parallal action.
Held : Once action has been taken by the society under section
48-AA, it was not open to the Registrar to initiate parallel action. 1969 JLJ 1016 and 2012 RN 272 (HC) distinguished. (2009)9 SCC 173 referred to. [Para 17
(7) Constitution of India -- Arts.226 and 227 -- bar of alternative remedy -- when not attract -- question of competence/jurisdiction involved -- it is not necessary to relegate persons to avail alternative remedy -- petition allowed. 2013 RN 283 (SC) followed. (2014)1 SCC 603 referred to. [Paras 19 & 22
¼1½ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e] 1960 ¼e-iz-½ & 50&d rFkk 48ⅆ & fujlu ds fo"k; esa mi/kkj.kk & ,d gh fo"k; ij ;s nks mica/k & foof{kr rkSj ij & igys ls gh fo|eku /kkjk 50&d dks fujflr gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrk & D;ksafd ckn esa laLFkkfir mica/k fujlu ds fo"k; esa fdlh mica/k dk izca/k ugha djrkA , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 1015 fufnZ"VA
¼iSjk 13½
¼2½ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e] 1960 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 48ⅆ rFkk 50&d & fujlu ds fo"k; esa mi/kkj.kk & ,d gh fo"k; ij ;s nks mica/k & foof{kr rkSj ij & igys ls gh fo|eku /kkjk 50&d dks fujflr gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrk & okn esa laLFkkfir /kkjk 84ⅆ fujlu ds mica/k dk izca/k ugha djrhA
;kphx.k dh vksj ls ;g rdZ fd;k x;k fd /kkjk 48ⅆ ckn dk mica/k gS tks mlh igyw ij fopkj djrk gS vkSj] blfy,] iwoZrj mica/k ¼/kkjk 50&d½ foof{kr :i ls fujflr ekuh tkuk pkfg,A
¼iSjk 13½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fof/k esa ;g lqLFkkfir gS fd foof{kr rkSj ij fujlu ds fo#) mi/kkj.kk gS vkSj bl fu;e dk dkj.k bl fl)kar ij vk/kkfjr gS fd fo/kku eaMy dks ,d gh fo"k; dh ckr ij mica/k vf/kfu;fer djrs le; fo|eku mica/k dh iw.kZ tkudkjh Fkh] vkSj] blfy,] tc ;g fujlu ds mica/k dk izca/k ugha djrk gS] bldk ;gh vk'k; gS fd fo|eku mica/k dk fujlu ugha djrkA , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 1561] ¼2003½7 ,l lh lh 389 rFkk ¼1997½1 ,l lh lh 450 fufnZ"VA
¼iSjk 13½
¼3½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & dk fl)kar & ,d gh fo"k; dh ckr ij nks mica/k & fujlu ds fo"k; esa mi/kkj.kk & foof{kr rkSj ij & iwoZrj fLFkr mica/k fujflr gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrk & D;ksafd ckn dk laLFkkfir mica/k fujlu mica/k dk izca/k ugha djrkA
¼iSjk 13½
¼4½ uSlfxZd U;k; & fl)kar dk ykxw gksuk & dkuwu uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar ds vuqikyu ds fo"k; esa ekSu & tgk¡ i{kdkjksa ds lkjoku~ vf/kdkj fo'ks"k :i ls izHkkfor gksa & ,sls dkuwuh ekSu dks uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar dk vuqikyu varfuZfgr gksus ds :i esa fy;k tkrk gS & tcfd e-iz- lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e] 1960 dh /kkjk 50&d¼2½ lquokbZ dk mica/k ugha gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % /kkjk 50&d¼2½ esa uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar dks i<+us dh vko';drk gSA bl izdkj] nksuksa /kkjk,a lg&fo|eku gks ldrh gSa vkSj os lqlaxr :i ls vFkkZUo;u djuk visf{kr djrh gSaA ;g lkekU; ckr gS fd dkuwu dks laiw.kZ :i ls i<+k tkuk pkfg, vkSj dkuwu ds ,d mica/k dk mlh vf/kfu;e esa vU; mica/k ds lanHkZ ds lkFk vFkkZUo;u fd;k tkuk pkfg, ftlls laiw.kZ dkuwu dk lqlaxr vf/kfu;e gks ldsA
¼iSjk 15½
mi;qZDr fo'ys"k.k ds n`f"Vdks.k ls] ;g Li"V gS fd jftLVªkj dks in [kkyh gksuk ?kksf"kr djus ls iwoZ uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar dk vuqikyu djuk visf{kr FkkA ¼1981½1 ,l lh lh 664 rFkk ¼1994½4 ,l lh lh 328 fufnZ"VA
¼iSjk 16½
¼5½ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e] 1960 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 50&d¼2½ rFkk 48ⅆ] ijarqd & jftLVªkj dh 'kfDr;k¡ & cSad ds lapkyd eaMy dk lnL; & mls lquokbZ dk volj iznku fd, fcuk & fujgZrk ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fu%lansg] /kkjk 48ⅆ ckn esa var% LFkkfir dh xbZ gSA /kkjk 48ⅆ ¼1½ Li"V djrh gS fd fo/kku eaMy dk vk'k; lacaf/kr O;fDr dks lquokbZ dk volj iznku djuk FkkA ;g /kkjk Li"V djrh gS fd ;fn lnL; vf/kfu;e vkSj fu;eksa esa fofufnZ"V fujgZrkvksa esa ls fdlh ls xzflr gS] lkslkbVh ds lapkyd eaMy dk ;g drZO; gS fd ,sls lnL; dks fujgZrk ?kksf"kr djsA fQj Hkh ijarqd ;g Li"V djrk gS fd ;g lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj iznku fd, tkus ds i'pkr~ gh fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;fn lkslkbVh nks ekl ds Hkhrj dk;Zokgh djus esa vlQy jgrh gS] jftLVªkj esa ,sls lnL; dks leqfpr lquokbZ dk volj iznku djus ds i'pkr~ fyf[kr esa vkns'k ikfjr dj fujgZrk ?kksf"kr djus dh 'kfDr fufgr gSA blfy,] /kkjk 48ⅆ esa uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar lfUufo"V fd, gSaA
¼iSjk 14½
¼6½ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e] 1960 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 48ⅆ rFkk 50&d¼2½ & /kkjk 50&d¼2½ ds v/khu 'kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr & lkslkbVh }kjk /kkjk 48ⅆ ds vèkhu dk;Zokgh lafLFkr & jftLVªkj dks lekukarj dk;Zokgh djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % tc ,d ckj lkslkbVh }kjk /kkjk 48ⅆ ds v/khu dkjZokbZ dh tk pqdh gks] jftLVªkj dks lekukarj dkjZokbZ lafLFkr dj izkjaHk ugha djuk FkkA 1969 ts ,y ts 1016 rFkk 2012 jk fu 272 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½ izHksfnrA ¼2009½9 ,l lh lh 173 fufnZ"VA
¼iSjk 17½
¼7½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 rFkk 227 & vuqdYih mipkj dk otZu & dc vkdf"kZr ugha gksrk & l{kerk@vf/kdkfjrk dk iz'u varoZfyr & ;g vko';d ugha gS fd O;fDr;ksa dks vuqdYih mipkj miyH; djus ds fy, <dsyk tk, & ;kfpdk eatwj dh xbZA 2013 jk fu 283 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ vuqlfjrA ¼2014½1 ,l lh lh 603 fufnZ"VA
¼iSjk 19 ,oa 22½
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 19.8.2014, whereby the petitioners were held to be disqualified for membership of the committee. The consequential order of the same date, Annexure P-1, is also called in question, whereby it was held that the elected Board of Directors has ceased to function for want of quorum. Accordingly, in place of Board of Directors, an Administrator is appointed.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner-Board was constituted for five years pursuant to an election held on 4.4.2008. The term of the Board was five years, i.e., up to 3.4.2013. Before the Board could complete its tenure, it was suspended on 9.12.2009. This suspension order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.4536/2011. The Division Bench by order dated 30.1.2014 (Annexure P/4) set aside the said suspension order. The said order of this Court was unsuccessfully put to test before the apex Court in SLP No.10826/2014. The apex Court dismissed the appeal on 30.6.2014 by observing that it would be open to the petitioners to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
3. The respondents issued notices to petitioners No.4,5,8,9 and 11 on 6.8.2014. These notices were issued under rule 44 (1) (h) of M.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (for brevity, the “1962 Rules”). The case of the petitioners is that before issuance of said notices dated 6.8.2014, the action under section 48-AA of the M.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for brevity, the “Act”) was already initiated by the society under section 48-AA of the Act. In addition, it is contended by Shri H.D.Gupta, learned senior counsel that the aforesaid notices (Annexure P-6) were not served on the petitioners No.4,5 and 8. The attention is drawn on Annexure P-7 to submit that notices were returned and were not actually served on the said petitioners. It is further contended that President of the Board appeared and submitted objection in respect to the action taken by the Joint Registrar. The specific objection was that once an action has already been initiated by the Board/Society, it is not open to the respondents to issue notices (Annexure P-6). Registrar could have taken action only after completion of two months period as per section 48-AA.
4. The petitioners argued that the total number of Directors of Board is 23, out of which 15 are elected members, 5 are official members and 3 are nominated members. As per Rule 44 (1) (h) of 1962 Rules, the action can be taken only when there is a deficiency of repayment of loan. Rule 44 (1)(h) does not include non-payment of “advance”. It is, therefore, urged that the action for non-payment of advance is beyond the ambit of said rules and, therefore, action is without authority of law. Shri Gupta relied on section 86 of the Act and Rules 75 (3)(c) of 1962 Rules to submit that notices are required to be issued and served in consonance with the said provisions. The notices were not served as per the said statutory procedure and, therefore, the entire action based on such notices is vitiated. It is also submitted that the registered notices were not issued with acknowledgment due. Reliance is also placed on Order 5 rule 9 CPC to bolster the submission regarding mode of service of notice.
5. It is also urged that Annexure P-9 is the no-dues certificate issued by the concerned society manager in favour of petitioners No.4, 5 and 8. This certificate makes it clear that there were no dues against these petitioners. If notices would have been received, the petitioners could have put forth their defence before the respondents.
6. It is further urged by Shri H.D.Gupta that on the date fixed for appearance, i.e., 19.8.2014, the order Annexure P/2 has been passed. The order is passed by invoking section 50-A (1) and (2) of the Act and Rule 44(1) of 1962 Rules. The authority has not taken pains to verify whether notices were served. This action runs contrary to the prin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
