Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/951/2021 on 21 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 971 of 2021
BETWEEN:
Krishna Pal Singh ......Petitioner
AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents
With
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 951 of 2021
BETWEEN:
Vishnu and another ......Petitioners
(By Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary & Mr. B. N. Molakhi, Advocates)
AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents
(By Mr. T.S. Phartiyal & Mr. G.S. Negi, Additional C.S.C. for the State of
Uttarakhand & Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate has put in appearance on
behalf of respondent no. 5)
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties through
video conferencing.
2. Defect, as pointed out by the Registry is
overruled.
3. Since common question of law and facts are
involved in these writ petitions, therefore with the
consent of parties these writ petitions are being taken
up together and are being adjudicated by this
common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity,
facts of WPMS No. 971 of 2021 are being considered.
4. Mr. Krishna Pal Singh (petitioner in WPMS No.
971 of 2021) was elected as Director/Member of
Committee of Management of a Cooperative Society,
namely, Buhuddesiya Narsan Gurukul Kisan Sewa
Sahkari Samiti Limited, Haridwar, on 23.07.2018.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner,
thereafter, he was elected as Chairman of the
Committee of Management of the said Cooperative
Society for a period of five years, thus, his term as
Chairman was to last up-to 10.08.2023. On
08.08.2020, the Committee of Management passed a
resolution for removal of Mr. Krishan Pal Singh
(petitioner in WPMS No. 971 of 2021) and two more
persons, namely, Mr. Vishnu and Mr. Ashok Kumar
(petitioners in WPMS No. 951 of 2021) from the
membership of Committee of Management of the
Cooperative Society on the ground that they have
absented from three consecutive meetings of the
Committee of Management.
5. Feeling aggrieved by their removal, petitioners
approached the District Assistant Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, by filing a representation.
Based on the said representation, District Assistant
Registrar, Cooperative Society, Haridwar appointed
Additional District Cooperative Officer, Narsan,
Haridwar as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer
submitted his report. Based on the Inquiry Report,
District Assistant Registrar issued a notice to the
Managing Director of the Cooperative Society
concerned on 17.03.2021 calling upon him to show
cause as to why disciplinary proceedings may not be
initiated against him for fraudulently removing the
petitioners from the membership of the Cooperative
Society. It was further provided in the notice that
petitioners shall be permitted to participate in the
next meeting of the Committee of Management/Board
of Directors.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to
the order passed by the District Assistant Registrar,
they participated in the next meeting of Committee of
Management/Board of Directors held on 18.03.2021.
7. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated
31.03.2021, passed by the Registrar, which is on
record as Annexure No.-12 to the writ petition. By the
said order, Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Uttarakhand has set-aside the notice/order dated
17.03.2021 passed by District Assistant Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Haridwar, whereby petitioners
were permitted to participate in the next meetings of
Committee of Management/Board of Directors of the
Cooperative Society. This order was passed on an
application moved by one Mr. Mohit Chaudhary,
Director of the Cooperative Society concerned, who
presided the meeting of Committee of Management
held on 08.08.2020, in which petitioners were
removed from the membership of Committee of
Management.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the impugned order passed by the Registrar on
31.03.2021, whereby the order/show cause notice
issued by the District Assistant Registrar on
17.03.2021 was set-aside, has been passed without
issuing any notice to the petitioners or without
affording any opportunity of hearing to them. He,
thus, submits that since the order passed by District
Assistant Registrar on 17.03.2021 was in favour of
the petitioners, therefore, they were entitled to be
heard before setting-aside the said order, as the
order impugned passed by the Registrar, was
prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners.
9. Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, learned Additional C.S.C.
appearing for the State and Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir,
learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 do
not dispute the submission made on behalf of the
petitioners that no notice or opportunity of hearing
was given to the petitioners by the Registrar before
passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2021.
10. Since the District Assistant Registrar in his
order/show cause notice dated 17.03.2021 had
provided that petitioners shall be entitled to
participate in the next meeting of the Board of
Directors/Committee of Management, therefore, it
was incumbent upon the Registrar to provide
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before
setting-aside the order/notice issued by the District
Assistant Registrar.
11. It is settled position in law that any order, which
adversely affects the interest of any person or entails
civil consequences, can be passed only after providing
opportunity of hearing to him. As stated earlier, the
order passed by the Registrar adversely affects the
interest of the petitioners; therefore, petitioners are
entitled for hearing. Since Registrar has passed the
impugned order without hearing the petitioners,
therefore, the impugned order, which has been
passed in violation of principles of natural justice,
cannot sustained.
12. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is
allowed, the impugned order dated 31.03.2021
passed by respondent no. 3 is quashed, and matter is
remitted back to the Registrar to pass order afresh, in
accordance with law, after hearing all the
stakeholders, including petitioners.
13. This Court hopes and expects that fresh order
shall be passed by the Registrar, as early as possible,
but not later than four months from the date of
production of copy of this order. However, it shall be
open to the petitioners to question the competence of
the Registrar to take decision in the matter.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Navin
