Ajay Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 19156 Raj

(1 of 6) [CW-9856/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9856/2021

Ajay Singh S/o Shri Jaipal Singh Rajput, Aged About 49 Years, Chairman, Debari Lamps, Resident Of 65, Aravali Complex, Kalkamata Road, Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, 22 Godown, Jaipur.

2. Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.

3. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Udaipur.

4. Debari Vrahad Krishi Bahuuddeshiya Sahakari Samiti Limited, Udaipur Through Its Administrator.

----Respondents Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12760/2021 Gera @ Geru Lal S/o Shri Kika Ji, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Nala Debari, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, 22 Godown, Jaipur.

2. Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.

3. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Udaipur.

4. Debari Vrahad Krishi Bahuuddeshiya Sahakari Samiti Limited Udaipur, Through Its Administrator.

                                                                 ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Manoj Bohra
                                Mr. Arvind Vyas
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore
                                Mr. Rajat Dave




                                              (2 of 6)                     [CW-9856/2021]


                        JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                        Order

16/12/2021

1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.07.2021

issued by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Udaipur

Division, Udaipur (respondent No.2), whereby the Managing

Committee of the Society (Debari Vrahad Krishi Bahuuddeshiya

Sahakari Samiti Limited, Udaipur - respondent No.4) in which

petitioners were Chairman/Member has been dissolved and an

administrator has been appointed.

2. Mr. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the order impugned has been passed by respondent No.2 without

affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the

society/Members of the Managing Committee.

3. In respect of the contention aforesaid, he informed that the

society came to receive a notice dated 17.02.2021 in which

reliance was placed upon letter dated 03.11.2020 issued by the

Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Udaipur and various

other directions and circulars, and in spite of repeated requests

made by the petitioners, copies of the same were not provided.

Thereafter the order impugned came to be passed on 19.07.2021

while noticing that the petitioners have failed to appear and file

reply to the said notices.

4. Learned counsel argued that on petitioners' request, the

respondent No.2 had issued a direction to the respondent No.3 to

provide copies of the letter No.2142, dated 03.11.2020 and all

relevant circulars and directions to the Chairman of the

petitioners' society as is evident from note No.2 appended with

the communication dated 17.03.2021, yet, the documents were

(3 of 6) [CW-9856/2021]

not made available to the petitioners for which, they failed to file

reply and defend their cause.

5. Mr. Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent - State on the other hand submitted that firstly the

circulars referred to in the notices were nothing but instructions to

comply with the statutory provisions including the provisions of

Service Conditions 2008. He highlighted that though the age of

retirement of a Manager, Cooperative Society is 60 years, yet the

petitioners have continued to the Manager of the society even

upto the age of 65 years apart from committing various other

irregularities.

6. Court's attention was invited towards letter of the Deputy

Registrar dated 19.07.2021 sent to the respondent No.2, inter

alia, informing that despite the letter dated 06.07.2021, the

petitioners did not turn up to collect the relevant documents.

7. It was argued that the petitioners themselves are to be

blamed, inasmuch as they have not even cared to file a formal

reply in relation to the allegations made in the notices, which

otherwise were not dependent upon any departmental circular or

documents.

8. Pointing towards the issues raised in the notice dated

17.02.2021, learned counsel argued that none of the issues on

which reply was sought, required any copies of the circulars while

iterating that the respondents were always willing to provide

copies of the documents as demanded by the petitioners.

9. It was also argued that the petitioners are guilty of swindling

the society's funds to the tune of lacs of rupees so also violating

the provisions by permitting the Manager of the society to

continue even after crossing the age of superannuation and not

(4 of 6) [CW-9856/2021]

providing record/relevant documents to the competent authority,

when enquiry under section 55 of the Rajasthan Cooperative

Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001')

was initiated against the petitioners' society.

10. In rejoinder, Mr. Bohra submitted that maybe, the petitioners

did not file reply, but the respondent No.2 was in any case

required to record his finding regarding violation or breaches (if

any). Without doing so, the respondent No.2 has dissolved the

society merely because the members of the Managing Committee

of the society did not appear and respond.

11. Mr. Bohra relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court

in case of Smt. Geeta Patel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

[2014(3) WLC (Raj.) 13] and in case of Man Mal Sharma Vs.

Bikaner Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar [AIR 1999 Rajasthan 13].

12. Heard.

13. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the

considered view that questions or issues, explanation whereof was

sought by respondent No.2 & 3, related to general working of the

society and the records for those issues were very much available

with the petitioners.

14. The requirement of copies of the circular and the letter dated

03.11.2020 issued by the Additional Registrar was simply a

subterfuge to thwart or prolong the proceedings of section 30 of

the Act of 2001.

15. That apart, when the respondents have invited the

petitioners to collect the copies, it was incumbent upon the

petitioners to have approached the Additional Registrar and obtain

(5 of 6) [CW-9856/2021]

copies of the relevant documents, which for the reasons best

known to them, they chose not to do.

16. A perusal of the impugned order dated 19.07.2021 clearly

shows that the Additional Registrar was having all relevant

information/material with him, including the information that the

Manager of the society has been allowed to work upto 65 years

contrary to the statutory provisions.

17. On the basis of the record available, the Additional Registrar

has recorded a finding that the Members of the society have

devoured a huge amount of Rs.34,75,737/- by disbursing the

amount to the Manager apart from committing other glaring

irregularities.

18. Moving on to the judgments cited; in the Division Bench

judgment in case of Geeta Patel (supra), it has been held by the

Division Bench that before dissolution, reasonable opportunity of

hearing should be given.

19. Such proposition of law cannot be disputed but if the facts of

the present case are considered, this Court finds that sufficient

opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. They

themselves have chosen not to avail the same. Therefore, no

advantage can be drawn by the petitioners from the Division

Bench judgment of Smt. Geeta Patel (supra).

20. Adverting to the judgment in case of Man Mal Sharma

(supra) relied upon by Mr. Bohra, which was relied upon to

buttress the submission that for a stand-alone instance of default,

a society cannot be dissolved and there should be continuing

default in order to dissolve a society, this Court finds that the

factual backdrop of the said case was entirely different from the

present case.

(6 of 6) [CW-9856/2021]

21. In the case in hand, the breach of statutory provision of

continuing the Manager of the society till the age of 65 years,

ignoring that retirement age was 60 years, was a continuing

default. That apart, other allegations which remained unrefuted or

unresponded to are good enough for passing an order of

dissolution of petitioners' society. Having regard to allegations

levelled against the Chairman/Members of the society, this Court

is of the considered view that it was a fit case of dissolution of the

Managing Committee.

22. The petitioners who have chosen not to file reply and appear

before respondent No.3 for defending their cause cannot take plea

of breach of principles of natural justice. It cannot be said that

there has been infraction of principles of natural justice.

23. The order impugned passed by the respondent No.2 is

perfectly just and valid in the eyes of law. No interference in the

extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court in Article 226/227 of

the Constitution of India is called for.

24. Writ petitions, therefore, fail.

25. Stay petitions also stand disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 10-11-Amar/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)