Manipur High Court
Shri Yumnam Ranjit Singh Aged ... vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 17 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
LHAINEI Digitally
by
signed AT IMPHAL
CHONG HAOKIP
LHAINEICHONG
Date: 2022.08.17
HAOKIP 14:27:33 +05'30' W.P.(C) No. 511 of 2020
1. Shri Yumnam Ranjit Singh aged about 52 years, S/o (L) Y. Ibobi
Singh of Yumnam Huidrom Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Wangoi,
Imphal West District, Manipur-Pin-795009.
2. Heikham Gourahari Singh, aged about 70 years, S/O. (L) H.
Kola Singh a resident of Khurkhul Makha Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Mantripukhri, Imphal West District, Manipur-795002.
3. Henam Ibobi Singh aged about 73 years, S/O. H. Thambal
Singh a resident of Khurai Angom Mamang Leikai, P.O. & P.S.-
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur. Pin-795005.
4. Wahengbam Amutombi Singh aged about 72 years, S/O. (L) W.
Gopal Singh a resident of Wangoi Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Wangoi,
Imphal West District, Manipur. Pin-795009.
5. Wahengbam Iboton Singh aged about 52 years, S/O. (L). W.
Birachandra Singh a resident of Kumbi Ward No. 7, Moirang
Sub Division, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, Bishnupur District, Manipur-
795133.
... Petitioners
-Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (Co-
operation) Government of Manipur Imphal-Pin-795001.
2. The Registrar Co-operative Societies Government of Manipur,
Lamphelpat, Imphal West Manipur Pin-795004.
3. Shri Tonjam Lokeshor Singh, aged about 51 years S/O T.
Shyamkishor Singh, a permanent resident of Khundrakpam
Mayai Leikai, P.O. Pangei, P.S. Heingang, District-Imphal East,
Manipur- impleaded as Respondent No. 3 vide order dated
08.10.2020 passed in the present writ petition.
... Respondents
WP(C) No. 511 of 2020 Page 1
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioners : Mr. Th. Jugindro, Adv.
For the respondents : Mr. A. Vashum, GA & Mr.
L. Anand, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 26.07.2022
Date of Judgment : 17.08.2022
Judgment
[1] Heard Mr. Th. Jugindro, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for
the respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. L. Anand, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No. 3.
The present writ petition had been filed assailing the orders
dated 28.08.20200 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Manipur dissolving the Board of Manipur Apex Co-operating Marketing
Societies Limited (MACMS Ltd.) coupled with a prayer for allowing the
Board to continue functioning till completion of its tenure.
[2] The facts of the present case in a nutshell is that the petitioners are
all elected members of the MACPMS Ltd., which is a Society registered
under the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act 1976. The present Board of
Directors of the society was elected in the special general body meeting
held on 22.11.2017 and the term of their office is for the period of 5 years
w.e.f. the date of election.
WP(C) No. 511 of 2020 Page 2
[3] During the tenure of office of the present petitioners, the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies issued an order dated 16.12.2019 constituting a
three members committee to enquire into the constitution, working and
financial affairs of the MACMS Ltd. under Section 83 of the Manipur Co-
operative Societies Act, 1976. After holding an enquiry, the said committee
submitted a report dated 06.01.2020 to the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies stating, inter-alia, that the Chairman of the Society misapplied,
retained, indulged into misefficient, misappropriated the society's fund
amounting to rupees sixty-one Lakhs and not maintained records for the
period from July, 2019 to November, 2019. On receiving the said report,
the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, sent a notice
dated 06.06.2020 to the Chairman, MACMS Ltd. enclosing therein the said
enquiry report and directing to explain within 15 days from the date of
issue of the said notice as to why necessary action should not be taken up
against him. Copy of the said notice dated 06.06.2020 was also furnished
to the Board of Directors of the MACMS Ltd.
[4] On receiving the said notice dated 06.06.2020 along with the copy
of the enquiry report dated 06.01.2020, the petitioner No. 1, who was the
Chairman of the MACMS Ltd., submitted a written reply dated 19.06.2020
under covered of a letter dated 19.06.2020 addressed to the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, Manipur.
After considering the written reply submitted by the petitioner
No. 1, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies Manipur issued the
WP(C) No. 511 of 2020 Page 3
impugned order dated 28.08.2020 thereby dissolving the Board of MACMS
Ltd. until further orders and the said order was published in the Manipur
Gazette bearing No. 136 dated 01.09.2020 as required under the Rules 62
of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Rules, 1977. Having been
aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ
petition for redressing their grievances.
[5] Mr. Th. Jugindro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
raised only two grounds in assailing the order dated 28.08.2020 issued by
the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur. The first ground raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was given to the
petitioners prior to issuance of the impugned order as provided under
Section 78 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and Rules
62 (2) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Rules 1977. Accordingly, the
impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside as the same had
been issued in violation of the principle of natural justice. The second
ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 78 (1)
of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976, the Registrar has no
power or authority to dissolve the Board of the MACMS Ltd.
[6] In connection with the first ground, it has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that under Section 78 (1) of the Manipur
Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and Rule 62 (2) of the Manipur Co-
operative Societies Rule, 1977, it is provided that the Registrar should give
an opportunity to the Board or the members concerned to show-cause
WP(C) No. 511 of 2020 Page 4
within 15 days from the date of issue of the notice before taking any
action. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
in the present case, no notice as contemplated under the aforesaid Act
and Rules was given to the petitioners and issued the impugned order
thereby dissolving the Board in total contravention of the provisions of
Section 78 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and Rules
62 (2) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Rules, 1977 and the principle
of natural justice. The learned counsel accordingly submitted that on this
count alone, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
[7] In connection with the second ground raised by the counsel for the
petitioners, it has been submitted that under Section 78 (1) of the Manipur
Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 read with its corresponding Rules 62 (2)
of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Rules, 1977 the word "dissolved" is
not mentioned and as such, the Registrar has no power or authority to
dissolve the Board of MACMS Ltd. as has been done under the impugned
order. The learned counsel accordingly submitted that the impugned order
is liable to be quashed and set aside as the same had been issued illegally
and arbitrarily and without any power and jurisdiction.
[8] Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents No. 1 & 2 submitted that after receiving the enquiry report
dated 06.01.2020 submitted by the enquiry committee, the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, Manipur issued a notice dated 06.06.2020
enclosing therein the said enquiry report and directing the petitioner No. 1,
WP(C) No. 511 of 2020 Page 5
who was the Chairman of the MACMS Ltd., to explain in writing within 15
days from the date of issue of the said notice as to why necessary action
should not be taken up. The learned Government Advocate submitted that
the said notice had been issued in terms of the provisions of Section 78(1)
of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and Rules 62 (2) of the
Manipur Co-operative Societies Rule, 1977. It has further been submitted
by the learned Government Advocate that a copy of the said notice was
also endorsed to the Board of Directors of MACMS Ltd. and that after
receiving and considering the written reply submitted by the Chairman of
the MACMS Ltd., the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur issued
the impugned order dated 28.08.2020 and published the same in the
Manipur Gazette on 01.09.2020 in compliance with the provisions of Rules
62 of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976. In view of the above
factual position, it has been submitted by the learned Government
Advocate that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued the impugned
order strictly in compliance with the provisions of Section 78 (1) of the
Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and the provisions of Rules 62
of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Rules, 1977 and also in compliance
of the principle of natural justice. The learned Government Advocate
further submitted that the first ground raised by the counsel for the
petitioner is misconceived and without any basis and accordingly, not
sustainable.
WP(C) No. 511 of 2020 Page 6
[9] It has further been submitted by the learned Government Advocate
that under Section 152 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act,
1976, there is provisions for filing an appeal against an order passed by
the Registrar under Section 78 of the Act to the State Government. In the
present case, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present
writ petition assailing the order dated 28.08.2020 issued by the Registrar
of Co-operative Societies Manipur under Section 78 of the Manipur Co-
operative Societies Act, 1976 without exhausting the alternative and
effective remedy for filing appeal against the impugned order as provided
under Section 152 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and
accordingly, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed outright as
being not maintainable.
In support of his contention, the learned Government
Advocate relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of "Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal"
reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 wherein, it has been held as under:-
"11. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would
notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled
law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by
the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is
available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a
rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of
law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to
grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an
alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if
there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to
the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without
availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case
warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (see State
of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. V. State of
WP(C) No. 511 of 2020 Page 7
Orissa, Harbanslal Sahnia V. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and State of
H.P. V. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.)
"15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has
recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e.
where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with
the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the
fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to
invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has
been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice,
the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titaghur
Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court
will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if
an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved
person or the stature under which the action complained of has
been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of
grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum
is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition
should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation."
[10] Mr. L. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3
endorsed the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate
and further submitted that under Section 78 (1) of the Manipur Co-
operative Societies Act 1976, the Registrar is empowered to remove the
Board of any society and that such power cannot be diluted or rendered
negatory only on account of using the word "dissolved" instead of the word
"removed" in the impugned order. The learned counsel also submitted that
the word "removed" and "dissolved" are synonymous and carries or
denotes the same meaning and accordingly, the second ground raised by
the counsel for the petitioners is without any merit and the same is liable to
be rejected.
[11] This Court have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties at length and also examined the materials
available on record. It is undeniably found on record that before issuing the
WP(C) No. 511 of 2020 Page 8
impugned order, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Manipur
issued a notice dated 06.06.2020 to the Chairman, MACMS Ltd. enclosing
therein the enquiry report dated 06.01.2020 submitted by the enquiry
committee and directing to explain in writing within 15 days from the date
of issue of the said notice as to why necessary action should not be taken
up against him. A copy of the said notice was also endorsed to the Board
of Directors of the MACMS Ltd. In response to the said notice, the
Chairman of the MACMS Ltd. submitted a detailed written
reply/explanation dated 19.06.2020 under covered of a letter dated
19.06.2020 addressed to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur.
After examining the said reply, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Manipur issued the impugned order thereby dissolving the Board of
MACMS Ltd. until further orders. As the other members of the Managing
Director of MACMS Ltd. did not submit any reply to the notice issued by
the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, they cannot now claim
that they have not been given any notice before issuing the impugned
order. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur issued the impugned order
after giving notice as contemplated under Section 78 (1) of the Manipur
Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and Rule 62 (2) of the Manipur Co-
operative Societies Rules, 1977 and also in compliance with the principle
of natural justice. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the first ground
WP(C) No. 511 of 2020 Page 9
raised by the counsel for the petitioner is without any merit and the same
is not sustainable.
[12] So far as the second ground raised by the counsel for the
petitioners is concerned, it is to be noted that under Section 78 (1) of the
Manipur Co-operative Societies Act 1976, the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies is empowered to remove the Board of any society and this Court
is of the considered view that such power of the Registrar cannot be
nullified or rendered negatory only for using the word "dissolved" instead of
the word "removed" while issuing the impugned order. This Court is also of
the considered view that the words "removed" and "dissolved" are also
synonymous and expressed the same meaning. As the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies have the power to remove the Board of any societies
under Section 78 (1) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act 1976, this
Court did not find any ground or reason for interfering with the impugned
order.
In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby
dismissed as being devoid of merit. Parties are to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Lhaineichong
WP(C) No. 511 of 2020 Page 10
