Allahabad High Court
N.R. Karmchari Sahkari Awas ... vs Cooperative Tribunal Of U.P. At ... on 8 October, 2013
Bench: Shabihul Hasnain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 6701 of 2013
Petitioner :- N.R. Karmchari Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Thru Secretary
Respondent :- Cooperative Tribunal Of U.P. At Jawahar Bhawan Lucknow & Anr
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Sinha,Mayank Sinha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.
Heard Sri Girish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel.
Petitioner has challenged order dated 3.9.2013 passed by opposite party No.1. The order has been passed by two member Bench including the Chairman. The petitioner has raised an objection that since the Cooperative Tribunal consists of three members, two members can not hear a matter and any such order passed by only two members of the tribunal will be totally illegal and invalid. It will be necessary that the provisions given under Chapter XIII (Appeal and Review) Section 96 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 dealing with the constitution of the tribunal as quoted below may be examined:-
"96. Cooperative Tribunal.-(1) The State Government may constitute a tribunal or tribunals, each to be called Co-operative Tribunal, to exercise the functions conferred on the tribunal under this Chapter and where more than one tribunal is constituted, the State Government may fix, by order in writing, the area within which or the class of cases over which each tribunal shall exercise jurisdiction.
(2) A Tribunal shall consist of three persons possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed.
(3) Where the Tribunal consists of three members, any two members shall form the quorum for the disposal of its business;
Provided that in the event of a difference of opinion between them the matter over which there is a difference of opinion, shall be placed before the third member and the opinion with which the third member agrees, shall be deemed to be the opinion of the Tribunal. Where a matter is heard by all the three members of the tribunal and there is a difference of opinion, the majority opinion shall prevail.
-2-
(4) Any vacancy in the membership of the Tribunal shall be filled by the State Government.
(5) The procedure for holding the meeting and disposal of business by a Tribunal shall be such as may be prescribed."
Learned Standing counsel has pointed out clearly that the constitution has been given in clause 2 in Section 96 of the Act, which says that three persons possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed shall constitute a tribunal. Section 96(3) provides that where a tribunal consists of three members any two members shall form the quorum for disposal of its business. In the present case, the matter has been disposed of by two members and there has been no difference of opinion between the two members. Since there is unanimity, the matter will not be referred back to the third member. The provision envisages such a situation and that situation has not arisen in the case of the petitioner.
Petitioner argues that as per law given in the case of Bhagirathi and others Vs. The State through Smt. Razia, AIR 1955 ALL 113, if the constitution of bench is incomplete the order will be bad. The Court feels that the argument is totally hypothetical. Petitions can not be entertained on hypothetical situations.
In the present case, the order appears to be correct and valid. There is no illegality in the order. The quorum is complete according to Section 96(3) of the Act. The petition is devoid of merits and misconceived. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.10.2013
RKM.
