Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vehicle Factory Employees Cooperative ... vs T.K. Mukerji on 19 December, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 19 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 6370 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
VEHICLE FACTORY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE
SOCIETY LIMITED JABALPUR THROUGH ITS
ADMINISTRATION PRASHANT KOURAW S/O SHRI
MOHAN SINGH PATEL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS BY
OCCUPATION SERVICE HOUSE NO. 591 MADAN MAHAL
STATION ROAD NARSINGH WARD RANITAL JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR DIXIT - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. T.K. MUKERJI S/O LATE SHRI D.R. MUKERJI
HOUSE NO. 37 SAKET NAGAR RANJHI TAHSIL
AND DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE AUDIT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE
JOINT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.1)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition is filed being aggrieved of the order dated
21.11.2022 passed by the learned Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Tribunal,
Bhopal in Second Appeal No.36/2022 on the ground that second appeal was
filed by the Administrator of the petitioner society, namely, Vehicle Factory
Employees Cooperative Society and that appeal has been dismissed only on the
ground that a circular bearing No.Vidhi/222/2018/282 dated 31.05.2020 issued
by the Registrar provides for certain mechanism of taking permission from the
superior authority before filing appeal/revision/review. Tribunal has held that
since that provision was not followed, therefore, appeal in the hands of the
Administrator, is not maintainable.
2. Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, in
his turn, submits that duty of the Administrator is only to get the election
conducted and in support reading the provisions contained Section 49(7-A)(b)
of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, it is submitted that
the only duty assigned to the Administrator is to cause to conduct election of
the members of Board of Directors within a period of six months. Thus, it is
submitted that no other work could have been done by the Administrator except
to get the election conducted as no other authority is vested in him.
3. Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari also places reliance on Rule 59 of the Madhya
Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 to point out that an appeal to the
State Government or the Registrar shall be presented by the appellant or by his
duly appointed agent to the appellate authority either in person during office
hours or sent it by registered post. Thus, it is submitted that since Administrator
was not authorized to file appeal, there is no illegality in the impugned order.
4. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Gwalior District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Gwalior Vs.
Ramesh Chandra Mangal and others, AIR 1985 SC 337. Shri Tiwari has
also placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in case of
Liquidator, M.P. State Hatkargha Bunkar Sahakari Sangh Maryadit Vs.
Vijay Kumar Sharma and others (W.P. No.4095/2014, decided on
28.04.2014) and submits that this High Court while referring to the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gwalior District Co-operative Central Bank
Ltd. (supra) has held as under:-
''In the said judgment the learned Supreme Court has dealt with the
matter in the following manner:
We are in agreement with the conclusion to which the High Court
has come, though for somewhat different reasons which are as
follows:
''The Board of Directors of the appellant-Bank was superseded
by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies by an order dated
July 25, 1967 and its powers were vested in the Madhya Pradesh
State Cooperative Bank, Jabalpur. which is an Apex Bank, as
''officer-in-charge'' of the superseded Bank. By Resolution No.
23 dated May 19, 1968, the Apex Bank confirmed the action of
its Chairman/Vice-Chairman in deputing, amongst others S.P.
Jain as the Chief Executive Officer of the superseded Bank. The
Apex Bank had no authority or power so to appoint S.P. Jain
for two reasons: In the first place, the Apex Bank, being an
appointee of the Registrar, had no authority to divest itself of the
power conferred upon it by the Registrar and to invest S.P. Jain
with that power. The only authority which could have conferred
the necessary power on S.P. Jain was the Registrar. The
Registrar did not confer that power upon S.P. Jain under
Section 53(4) of the Act.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs.''
5. Placing reliance on these, it is submitted that Administrator could not
have filed the appeal.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Liquidator, M.P.
State Hatkargha Bunkar Sahakari Sangh Maryadit (supra), wherein
Hon'ble Division Bench has discussed judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gwalior District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. (supra) is on the issue
that a delegatee cannot sub-delegate in absence of express authority in the letter
of delegation. In the present case, this ratio of law is not applicable.
7. As far as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gwalior
District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. (supra) is concerned, that is on a
different issue and has no application to the facts of the present case.
8. As far as administrative order of the Registrar dated 31.05.2020 is
concerned, it is only directory and not mandatory. Tribunal has not considered
this aspect that what will be the impact of a directory order and that of a
mandatory order. In any case, when provisions contained in Section 49(7-A)(b)
is considered then that deals with conduct of election in the hands of the
Administrator within a stipulated time frame but it does not divest the
Administrator to act in furtherance of the objectives of the society and for the
betterment or in the interest of the superseded co-operative society. Therefore,
in absence of there being any embargo on the Administrator to act in the interest
of the co-operative society, with a view to protect the revenue of the co-
operative society, impugned order having been passed without considering
various legal aspects in a blindfold manner, cannot be given a seal of approval.
9. In view of above, impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the
learned Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal in Second Appeal
No.36/2022 is hereby quashed. Matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the
appeal on its own merits within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the order being passed today.
10. Parties are directed to appear before the Madhya Pradesh State Co-
operative Tribunal, Bhopal on 04.01.2024, for which no separate notice will be
required.
11. In above terms, this miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
pp
