Rajasthan High Court
Bannaram Meena Son Of Late Shri ... vs The Registrar on 18 May, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14198/2020
Bannaram Meena Son Of Late Shri Ramkhiladi Meena, Aged
About 42 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Khohra Choun,
Tehsil Raini, District Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Rajasthan, Nehru
Sahkar Bhawan, 22 Godown Circle, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Co-Operative Election Authority,
Raisem Bhawan, 10-B, Institutional Area, Jhalana
Doongari, Jaipur.
3. The Institutional Development Officer, Rajasthan Co-
Operative Dairy Federation Limited, Saras Sankul, Jln
Marg, Jaipur.
4. Alwar Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Jaipur
Road, Alwar Through Its Managing Director.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9280/2020
Bannaram Meena S/o Shri Ramkhiladi Meena, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Village And Post Khohra Chouhan, Tehsil Raini, District
Alwar
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Rajasthan Nehru
Sahakar Bhawan, 22 Godown Circle, Jaipur
2. Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Board, Pant Krishi
Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur Through Its Chairman
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG
Mr. Sajjan Singh Raghav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
18/05/2022
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for the
respondent no.2 to hold election of the managing committee of
(2 of 4) [CW-14198/2020]
Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Alwar (for brevity,
"the Sangh") immediately, to quash and set aside the notice
dated 26.11.2020 as well as the order dated even both passed by
the respondent no.1, the Registrar Cooperative Societies and the
order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Institutional Development
Officer, RCDF, Jaipur.
The facts in brief are that the petitioner was elected as
Member and Chairman of Board of Directors of Khora Chouhan
Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Limited (Primary Society) on
22.09.2015. Thereafter, he was elected as Chairman of the Board
of Directors of the Sangh on 22.09.2015. On expiry of the period
of five years from the date of his election as Chairman, in
pursuance of order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court, the Registrar vide its order dated 26.11.2020
restrained the petitioner from working as Chairman. Vide its order
dated even, he served the petitioner a notice under Section 30(1)
(c) of the Act of 2001 requiring him to show cause as to why an
Administrator be not appointed on expiry of period of the Board of
Directors of the Sangh. Vide its order dated 26.11.2020, the
respondent no.3, the Institutional Development Officer has
withdrawn the facilities afforded to the petitioner in his capacity as
Chairman. During the course of the arguments, the learned
counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions only to the
extent of challenge to the show cause notice dated 26.11.2020
issued by the Registrar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this
Court towards the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in case
of Shri Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan: 2017(3) WLC
(Raj.) 666, canvassed that therein, it has been held that
(3 of 4) [CW-14198/2020]
appointment of an Administrator in a Cooperative Society not
receiving any aid from the State Government is violative of the
spirit of cooperative movement as also the Constitutional
provisions contained under Part IXB of the Constitution of India.
He submitted that no government servant can be appointed as an
Administrator in view of the aforesaid judgment. He, therefore,
prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the show cause notice
dated 26.11.2020 be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that in case of Shri Bhanwar Lal (supra), the Division Bench of
this Court has quashed the amendment brought about in Section
30 of the Act of 2001 by way of the Amendment Act of 2015
restoring the provisions of Section 30(1)(c) introduced in the Act
vide the Amendment Act of 2013. Drawing attention of this Court
towards the reasoning assigned by the Division Bench, learned
AAG submitted that the maximum cap of six months for which an
Administrator could be appointed under Section 30(1)(c), was
deleted vide Amendment Act of 2015, which was held to be ultra
virus of the constitutional provisions. He submitted that as per the
existing statutory provisions, a government servant can be
appointed as an Administrator in a Cooperative Society for a
period of six months. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the
writ petition.
Heard. Considered.
The Division Bench of this Court has, in case of Shri
Bhanwar Lal (supra) quashed the Section 30-C inserted in the
Act of 2001 vide Amendment Act of 2015 on account that it
authorizes the Registrar to appoint a government servant as an
Administrator to manage the affairs of the society till the elections
(4 of 4) [CW-14198/2020]
are held, i.e., for the indefinite period, holding the same to be
unconstitutional; but, restored the earlier provision of Section
30(1)(c) inserted in the Act vide Amendment Act of 2013 which
provided a cap of six months for an Administrator so appointed.
Indisputably, Section 30(1)(c) exists in the statute book which
authorizes the Registrar to appoint a government servant as an
Administrator to manage the affairs of the society for a period not
exceeding six months. Therefore, the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is based on misinterpretation of the
judgment of this Court in case of Shri Bhanwar Lal (supra) &
deserve to be rejected.
Even otherwise also, vide notice dated 26.11.2020, the
petitioner has been afforded an opportunity to make his
representation, if any, against proposed appointment of a
government servant as an Administrator of the society. As
informed by the learned AAG, the petitioner has already filed its
response. It is expected from the Registrar to pass a reasoned
order in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 26.11.2020
after taking into consideration, the response submitted by the
petitioner thereto.
With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is
dismissed being devoid of merit.
Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
LAKSHYA SHARMA /41-42
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
