AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2017, passed by the Assistant Registrar conveying the approval of the competent authority to
appoint an Inquiry Officer under Section 61 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (in short ‘the Act’) in respect of the petitioner
No.1/Society. The Inquiry Officer has been directed to complete the inspection and submit a report in the light of the allegations of corruption and
misappropriation of funds levelled by the respondents No.3, 4 and 5 herein against the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner
No.1/Society.
On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners had stated that prior to passing of the impugned order, the respondent No.2/RCS had
passed an order dated 25.05.2017, appointing some other Inquiry Officer to examine the affairs of the petitioner No.1/Society, but the RCS had not
recorded his view in writing or afforded an opportunity of hearing to the persons against whom the complaint had been received, before ordering an
inspection. We were informed that aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had filed a Revision Petition before the Financial Commissioner under
Section 116 of the Act, which is pending adjudication.
During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal and the currency of the order dated 25.05.2017, a second order dated 04.08.2017 has been passed by
the respondent No.2/RCS appointing another Inquiry Officer to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of the petitioner No.1/Society. In view of the
aforesaid position, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/RCS was directed to obtain necessary instructions from the department.
Today, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/RCS states that after the present petition came to be filed, the RCS has issued a corrigendum on
04.9.2015, clarifying inter alia that the order dated 04.08.2017 is only a clarification indicating substitution of the Inquiry Officer appointed vide order
dated 25.05.2017, and no more.
It is, however, not in dispute that before passing the earlier order dated 25.5.2017 and the subsequent order dated 04.8.2017, no opportunity of
hearing was afforded to the persons against whom the complaint was lodged by the respondents No.3 to 5, though the documents submitted by both
sides were examined by the RCS which included the reply filed by the petitioner No.1/Society.
We are of the opinion that principles of natural justice require that before passing any orders under Section 61 of the Act, the RCS ought to have
afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to both sides. As the matter has been lingering for some time, the RCS is directed to fix a date of hearing
within one week from today, under written intimation to the petitioners and the respondents No.3 to 5 and grant them a personal hearing. Thereafter,
appropriate orders shall be passed by the RCS within four weeks from the date of conclusion of the hearing, under intimation to all concerned. If any
of the parties is aggrieved by the order passed by the RCS, he shall be entitled to seek legal recourse.
The impugned order dated 4.8.2017 and the earlier order dated 25.5.2017 are accordingly quashed and set aside. In view of the order passed above,
the appeal filed by the petitioners against the earlier order dated 25.5.2017 passed by the RCS and pending before the Financial Commissioner is
rendered infructuous. The petitioner shall withdraw the said appeal. A copy of this order be forwarded by the Registry forthwith to the learned
Financial Commissioner, for information.
The petition is disposed of, along with the pending application.