Delhi High Court
Gopi Chand Sharma vs Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd And ... on 28 July, 2015
Author: Gita Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6246/2011
Date of decision : 28th July, 2015
GOPI CHAND SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Sabharwal, Adv.
versus
DELHI NAGRIK SEHKARI BANK LTD AND ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
GITA MITTAL, J (ORAL)
1. With the consent of both sides, we have heard learned
counsels for final hearing in` this writ petition.
2. The petitioner was an office bearer of the respondent
no.1/bank. The bank appears to have had certain complaints
against his functioning. Consequently, the Board of Directors of
the respondent no. 1/bank appears to have passed a resolution dated
29th November, 2007 concluding that the petitioner had acted
fraudulently and in a manner which brought not only disrepute to
the bank but was detrimental to its proper working. It was
consequently resolved to expel the petitioner and his son, both of
whom were members of the respondent-bank, from the membership
of the Bank. The Bank conveyed this resolution on 24th December,
2007 to the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to
proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
3. Our attention is drawn to a letter dated 24th June, 2008 issued
by the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to the
respondent no. 1 with a copy endorsed to the petitioner with regard
to the aforesaid resolution of the bank requiring it to provide all
documents in support at the earliest. Instead of complying with this
demand, the respondent no.1/bank had issued a communication
dated 27th June, 2008 addressed to the petitioner informing him that
his membership of the bank stands cancelled. The deposit made by
the petitioner towards his membership was also refunded alongwith
the same communication.
4. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioner filed an appeal under
Section 112(i)(f) read with Section 40(4) of the Delhi Cooperative
Societies Act, 2003 before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. After a
detailed hearing, the Tribunal has rejected the appeal by the order
dated 11th August, 2011. The petitioner has assailed this order of
11th August, 2011 of the Tribunal by way of the present writ
petition inter alia on the ground that in terms of the proviso to
Section 40, the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the
Registrar of Cooperative Societies before approving the resolution.
The petitioner has been deprived of such a hearing. It is contended
that in fact, the expulsion of the petitioner as communicated by the
letter dated 27th June, 2008 has the effect of completely by-passing
the procedure prescribed under Section 40 of the Delhi Cooperative
Societies Act, 2003.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this matter.
In the facts noted above, the office of the Registrar of Cooperative
Societies had admittedly addressed the letter dated 24 th June, 2008
to the respondent/society calling upon it to furnish the documents
in support of the resolution dated 29th November, 2007. Instead of
complying with such a demand from the office of the Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, the respondent no. 1 has taken the expulsion
as approved in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 40 and
the impugned communication dated 27th June, 2008 has been
passed.
6. Our attention is drawn to the finding of the Tribunal in the
impugned order of 11th August, 2011 wherein the Tribunal has
noted that the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of being
heard by the competent authorities of the management before
taking the extreme step of expulsion. This was an aspect which
would have been considered by the office of the Registrar of
Cooperative Societies in case it had proceeded in the matter in
accordance with Section 40 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act,
2003. It appears that before the office of the Registrar of
Cooperative Societies could conclude its consideration in
accordance with law, the respondent no. 1 precipitated the matter
and issued the letter dated 27th June, 2008 to the petitioner. This
being the admitted position, the dismissal of the appeal by the
impugned order dated 11th August, 2011 has to be held to be
contrary to the statutory provision and cannot be sustained.
In view of the above, we direct as follows :-
(i) The order dated 11th August, 2011 of the Delhi Cooperative
Societies as well as the communication dated 27th June, 2008 issued
by the respondent no. 1/bank are hereby set aside and quashed.
(ii) A direction is issued to the Registrar of Cooperative
Societies to proceed in the mater in furtherance of its letter dated
24th June, 2008 issued to the respondent no.1/bank.
(iii) The respondent no.1 shall ensure that all relevant material
required by the office of the respondent no. 2 by its letter dated 24th
June, 2008 are placed before it within six weeks from today.
(iv) The respondent no. 1 shall thereafter proceed in the matter in
accordance with law.
(v) The parties shall appear before the respondent no. 2 for
further proceedings on 8th September, 2015 at 3 p.m.
This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
We make it clear that we have not heard the parties on the
merits of the case and have not expressed any opinion thereon.
Dasti.
GITA MITTAL, J
I.S.MEHTA, J
JULY 28, 2015
kr
