Allahabad High Court
Tej Singh vs State Of ... on 17 May, 2013
Bench: Uma Nath Singh, Mahendra Dayal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 1
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 4085 of 2013
Petitioner :- Tej Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Cooperative Lko. & Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Ram Raj
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.S. Pawar
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.
Order(Oral)
We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
This writ petition impugns the order dated 11.12.2012, passed by opposite party No. 3/Additional Housing Commissioner/Additional Registrar, Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Cooperative Section), Lucknow, which has been passed in disregard of the orders dated 25.6.2012 and 18.10.2012, passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.5010 ( M.B.) of 2012 and C No. 54156 of 2012, respectively. The consequent proceedings/action taken and orders passed thereafter; whereby the enquiry ordered to be conducted by this Court has not been conducted are also assailable. The order to close the inquiry while giving reference to some Government Order dated 19.10.2012 gives the impression that the Government Order dated 19.10.2012 would override and defeat the orders passed by this Court. Although one of the main points to be determined in the enquiry was to ascertain the number of members who were entitled to vote in the elections of the Managing Committee of opposite party no. 6 (the society), the same has not been done and rather the election was conducted on the basis of an incomplete list of members, in a premeditated manner and dehors the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules framed the under. Even a copy of the order dated 11.12.2012 was not served upon the petitioner, and it was only after the holding of the elections that the petitioner came to know that the same had been held in purported compliance of the order dated 11.12.2012, passed by opposite party no.3.
Learned Senior counsel Shri Prashant Chandra argues that in Writ C No.
54156 of 2012 (Committee of Management Kamal Kunj Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) a Division Bench of the Court at Allahabad headed by the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice on 18.10.2012 had passed order quashing the order dated 15.9.2012, passed by the Additional Housing Commissioner / Additional Registrar. The operative portion of the order dated 18.10.2012 is reproduced as under:-
"We are of the view that, instead of issuing a direction to the petitioners for filing the appeal, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned order dated 15.09.2012 and, accordingly, the same is quashed and the authority concerned is directed to consider the matter afresh upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and by passing a reasoned order thereon within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order.
Even thereafter, if the petitioners feel aggrieved, the remedy of appeal is available to them and they can avail of the same.
With the above direction and order, this petition is disposed of at the stage of admission on contest, however, without imposing any cost."
Thus, towards the compliance of the order, the Housing Commissioner was required to finalize the voters' list afresh irrespective of the contribution/non-contribution, cooperation/non-cooperation of the present petitioner. However, by the order dated 11th December, 2012, a direction was given to hold election on the basis of the same voters list and only an empty formality was completed by issuing notice to the petitioner to participate in the pending proceedings before the Additional Registrar. The order to close the proceedings started under the directions of the aforesaid order of the Court and on the statement of the President of the present Committee of Management is not endurable. Further, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the election has already been held in the month of March, 2013 and now the newly constituted committee has even proceeded to alienate the property of the society in illegal manner.
On the other hand, Shri K.S. Pawar, appearing for respondents, argues that since on the very next date i.e. 19.10.2012 the amendment in the Cooperative Societies Act was notified, whereby the term of the society was curtailed from 3 years to 2 years, there was nothing further required to be done by the Commissioner/ Registrar in compliance of the order dated 18.10.2012.
On due consideration of rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner/ Registrar had been directed to finalize the voters list afresh. But instead of doing so, the Additional Commissioner not only did an empty formality by issuing a notice to the petitioner to participate in the pending proceedings but also directed the holding of election on the basis of incomplete voters' list which he had to finalise by acting independently. Thus he could not have wound up the pending proceedings only on the statement of the President management committee who is the beneficiary of the election by giving a dodge to the petitioner in holding the elections without finalising the voters' list as directed vide the judicial order. That apart, notifying the amendment in the Cooperative Societies Act whereby the term of the society was reduced from 3 years to 2 years on the very next day of the order dated 18.10.2012 of this Court, itself suggests the act of malafide on the part of the respondents. This move to amend the provision as aforesaid must have been well within the notice of the respondents in advance which they, by suppressing, did not bring to the notice of the Court and misled it to pass the aforesaid order.
Let a notice be issued to Shri M.L.Chaubey, Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies as to why proceedings for instituting contempt as also the departmental proceedings not be initiated (i) for suppressing the information about the pending amendment in the U.P.Cooperative Societies Act which was notified on the very next day of the order of the Court, (ii) for taking shelter under the amended provision/Government order so as to close the proceedings started under the directions as contained in the aforesaid order of the Court and that too only on the basis of the statement of the beneficiary of the latest election, and (iii) for disobeying the directions to prepare the voters' list on the basis of which the election of the present Committee of Management was conducted. The officer shall remain present in person on 21.5.2013 to show cause.
List on 21.5.2013 at item no.1.
Order Date :- 17.5.2013
Muk
