Delhi High Court
Manjula, Secy. Home Living Coop. ... vs The Registrar Coop. Society on 24 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: 99 (2002) DLT 616
Author: Khan
Bench: B Khan, J Kapoor
JUDGMENT
Khan, J.
1. Notice under Section 32 of DCSA was issued to
petitioner on 10.6.98 alleging several irregularities
committed by the society. Petitioner challenges the
validity of this notice on the plea that it does not
satisfy the requirements of Section 32.
2. Interpreting the terms of Section 32, L/C for
petitioner Mr. Lekhi submitted that Registrar had first
to satisfy himself on requirements on Section 32 to form
an opinion and then initiate action commencing with
issuance of a show cause notice. In other words, he had
to satisfy all the requirements of Section 32 both for
issuing the show cause notice and passing of
supersession order. Since Registrar had failed, his
notice was without jurisdiction. Relevant portion of
Section 32 reads thus:-
"(1) if, in the opinion of the
Registrar, the committee of any cooperative
society persistently makes default or if it is
negligent int he performance of the duties
imposed on it by this Act or the Rules or the
bye-laws, or commits any act which is
prejudicial to the interest of the society, or
its members, the Registrar may, after giving the
committee an opportunity to state its
objections, if any, by order in writing, remove
the committee; and
(a) order fresh election of the
committee, or
(b) appoint one or more administrators
who need not be members of the society."
3. This Section, on plain reading, requires the
Registrar to form the opinion regarding persistent
default or negligence in the performance of the duties
cast on the Committee under bye-laws or provisions of
the Act and Rules and of any act committed which was
prejudicial to its interest of the society. It then
empowers the Registrar to pass an order of removal of
Committee but before passing such order to grant an
opportunity to the Committee to state its objections.
Apart from this, Regulation 66 provides for stating the
ground in this notice. Therefore, Registrar was not
required to satisfy all ingredients of Section 32 for
issuing a show cause notice. Such ingredients were to
be satisfied for passing an order of removal. As a
matter of act, issuance of show cause notice was the
first step for formation of opinion which could finally
lead to passing of order of removal or dropping of
proceedings. The purpose of show cause notice was to
inform the society of the alleged irregularities
committed by it and to afford it an opportunity to meet
these allegations and to prove its point. Where the
society was in a position to refute these, it was open
to Registrar to recall his notice and drop the
proceedings. It can't, therefore, be said that
Registrar was to satisfy all requirements of Section 32
even for issuing a show cause notice a tall
order indeed.
4. That being so, it could not be held that
Registrar's notice suffered from any want of
jurisdiction even if it was assumed that it fell short
of satisfying requirements of Section 32. In any case,
petitioner society had filed objections to the notice
which are under consideration by Registrar. The society
ought not have rushed to this court in the present
petition instead of allowing the Registrar to consider
its reply which could even result in recall of notice.
5. The petition appears to us premature and is
disposed of with direction to Registrar to consider
objection filed by petitioner and pass appropriate
orders thereon uninfluenced by anything said in this
order within two months from the appearance of parties
before him on 7th August 2002. Meanwhile, status quo as
on today shall be maintained on the status of society
till such orders are passed.
