Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 13365
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J
SODHA PARMAR KANTIBHAI MANIBHAI & 2 other(s) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 8 other(s) – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13072 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR SN SHELAT, MR CP CHAMPANERI
For the Respondents: MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, MR VINAY VISHEN, MR DHAVAL DAVE, MR PRANAV U RAVAL, MR PK JANI, MR SHIVANG P JANI
The court ruled that appointments under cooperative acts must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring a substantive and independent assessment of public interest to avoid arbitrary action.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 - Section 80(2) - Appointment of government representatives in cooperative society - Petition against appointment based on non-compliance with principles of natural justice, including lack of opportunity to opposing members before decision - Court emphasized that public interest must guide such appointments and that the Registrar failed to independently substantiate his opinion on necessity or expediency, resulting in order quashed. (Paras 10, 12, 30.9)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the order appointing government representatives under section 80(2) of the Act, claiming violation of natural justice as they were not adequately heard before the decision was made. The Registrar's action was deemed an arbitrary exercise of discretion without proper consideration of public interest. (Para 1)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Registrar did not provide a fair hearing to the petitioners before making the appointment. There was a clear need to assess the necessity for such appointments given the nature of the cooperative society's operations but no such analysis was performed by the Registrar. (Paras 22, 29.16)
Issues: The primary issues considered were whether the Registrar's order violated natural justice principles and if his opinion was independent and reflective of public interest as required by law. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that any administrative decision affecting the rights of members of a cooperative society must respect principles of natural justice and demonstrate a legitimate examination of public interest; failure to do so invalidates the order. (Paras 10, 29.9)
Result: The impugned order dated 20.10.2020 was quashed and set aside, with directions for future compliance with due process. (Para 24)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the appointment of government representatives under the cooperative societies act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by petitioners against nominations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. discussion on eligibility and qualifications of nominated members. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court observations on principles of natural justice. (Para 9) |
JUDGEMENT
Page 1 of 176 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent no.2 – Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gujarat State to appoint respondent nos. 6,7 and 8 as the Government Representatives in Kheda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited (For short “the Union”) while exercising powers under section 80(2) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”).
: FACTS :
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1) The Union is a duly registered cooperative society registered under the provisions of the Act and its management, affairs and business are carried out by the Managing Committee constituted under the provisions of the Act, Rules and byelaws of Page 2 of 176 the Union. The Managing Committee of the Union is elected as per the provisions of section 74C(1) of the Act and the election of the Managing Committee is conducted subject to the provisions of Chapter XIA of the Constitution of India. The Union is a specified cooperative society under section 74C(1)(iv) of the Act.
2.2) On expiry of the term of the Managing Committee of the Union, election for the purpose of electing new Managing Committee was held on 29.08.2020 and result thereof was declared on 31.08.2020. 2.3) The petitioners filed Special Civil Application No.11308/2020 since the authorities did not hold the election of the Chairman of the Union in time and it was prayed to restrain the authorities from appointing Government Representatives under Page 3 of 176 section 80(2) of the Act and to convene the meeting to elect Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
During the course of hearing on 08.10.2020 it was submitted by the respondent authorities that no notice is issued under section 80(2) of the Act and accordingly, this Court disposed of Special Civil Application No.11308/2020 reserving the liberty to file fresh petition if notice under section 80(2) of the Act is issued.
2.4) Thereafter notice under section 80(2) of the Act was issued on 14.10.2020 and hearing was fixed on 20.10.2020 for appointment of Government Representatives.
The petitioners thereafter preferred this petition on 17.10.2020 challenging the show cause notice issued under section 80(2) of the Act.
2.5) Hearing was conducted by respondent Page 4 of 176 no.2 on 20.10.2020 and 10 Directors filed their replies seeking time informing about the pendency of this petition wherein show cause notice under section 80(2) was challenged.
2.6) Respondent no.2, however, passed the impugned order dated 20.10.2020 nominating respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 as Government Representatives as members of the Managing committee.
2.7) It is the case of the petitioners that respondent nos. 6 and 7 filed their nomination to contest the election from Electorate Division No.1 - Anand and Electorate Division No.11 - Nadiad respectively but later both the respondents withdrew the nomination forms. It is also alleged by the petitioners that respondent nos. 6 and 7 are holding the position in the Page 5 of 176 ruling party. Respondent no.8 was serving as a Librarian and is a close associate of respondent no.9 Ex-MLA of Balasinor and member of the Managing Committee of the Union. It was therefore, alleged by the petitioners that respondent nos. 6 to 8 are appointed as Government Representatives on the Board of Directors of the Union under section 80(
