Ajay Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2774 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 90/2022

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.

----Appellant 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 Appellant(s)           :    Mr. Manoj Bohra.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

18/02/2022

Heard.

The order passed by the learned Single Judge is sought to be

challenged mainly on the ground that even if the petitioner-

appellant did not file any reply, it was incumbent upon the

authority to conduct inquiry, as envisaged under Section 30 of the

Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Act of

2001'), in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.

Geeta Patel vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(2014) 3

WLC (Raj.) 13].

(2 of 4) [SAW-90/2022]

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that merely

because reply was not submitted, the authority proceeded to

mechanically examine the allegations without conducting due

inquiry and without recording specific findings on the following

points, namely, (a) Loan was not distributed; (b) manager was

illegally allowed to continue after the age of superannuation and

(c) the relevant record and documents were not provided at the

time of inquiry under Section 55 of the Act.

We have gone through the order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

Amongst various considerations, the learned Single Judge

has considered the admitted position on record that despite copies

offered to be supplied, no reply was filed. Even when the

appellant sought for supplying certain documents, the authority

sent a letter dated 06.07.2021 for collecting documents, the

appellant did not appear nor collected documents. The order of

dissolution of the managing committee of the society came to be

passed by the authority considering that there was nothing on

record to show that the society was ever engaged in disbursal of

the loans. As there was no material on record and the records of

the society were not being disclosed by the appellant, the

authority had no option but to record a finding that there was no

material to show that loans were disbursed. This finding satisfies

the requirement of conducting inquiry in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the present case.

The learned counsel for the appellant sought to urge before

the Court that there was non-cooperation on the part of the bank,

due to which, loans could not be disbursed. This is the only

justification for not disbursement of the loan which should have

(3 of 4) [SAW-90/2022]

been placed by way of reply before the concerned authority. The

factum of non-disbursement of the loan being undisputed,

impediment was required to be stated by filing reply along with

the documents, which was not done.

It is also sought to be urged that the Managing Committee

was well within its authority to allow to continue the manager in

service beyond the age of superannuation, to which we find that

no reply on the line was ever filed before the authority much less

disclosing relevant provision of law under which such extension

could be granted by the Managing Committee in favour of retiring

manager. Irrespective of the documents, appearance was

required to bring to the notice of the inquiry officer, a provision of

law (Act, Rules and Regulations and bye-laws) under which such

extension beyond the age of superannuation could be granted.

No such material was placed before the authority. Neither in the

writ petition, nor even before this Court in appeal, any provision

was brought to the notice of this Court empowering the Managing

Committee to extend the services beyond the age of

superannuation. Indisputably, the appellant was given a notice.

In reply to the notice, the appellant was required to disclose the

authority under which extension was granted to the manager

because connected with that allegation. Further allegation is that

more than Rs.34 lacs were paid.

Lastly, there is allegation that records were withheld and not

disclosed when the inquiry was conducted under Section 55 of the

Act. The findings, which have been recorded by the authority,

satisfy the requirement of conducting inquiry in a given case.

Conduct of inquiry will depend upon the nature of the defence. In

the present case, as allegation was non-disbursal of the loan

(4 of 4) [SAW-90/2022]

amount, which was not reflected from any material. It was

incumbent on the appellant to disclose such material that the

loans were actually disbursed of providing justification under the

law, due to which loans could not disbursed but nothing was done.

In view of the aforesaid consideration, we are of the view

that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer

from any illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise

of appellate jurisdiction.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

6-a.asopa/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)