AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Balia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
This petition is directed against the order Annexure/9 dated October 21, 1991 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhilwara exercising power of the Registrar under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 u/s 32 rescinding the Resolutions of the Board of Directors of the petitioner Bank.
The Resolutions which have been rescinded are:
That, vide Resolution dated March 3, 1990 by which 770 nominal members of the Bank were converted into regular share holders on payment of share capital to at the tune of Rs. 4,99,700.00.
The Resolution dated April 28, 1990 by which the emoluments of four retired persons were increased to Rs. 75/- per day from Rs. 55/- per day.
The Resolution dated January 1990 by which one Shri Banshi Lal Dargad was appointed as Managing Director of the Bank for a period of two years, and
The Resolution dated August 12, 1991 by which accepting the recommendation No-10 of Staff Committee dated July 27, 1991, regular pay scale was sanctioned for persons working with the Bank as LDC and Class IV employees and one Dharmendra Kumar Sharma was promoted as Accountant.
Though, initially the challenge was made to the vires of Section 32 of the Act which was later on abandoned as is apparent from the order dated November 9, 1993.
The only contention raised while opposing the writ petition by the learned Additional Advocate General was that in the absence of any challenge to the vires of Section 32 of the Act, the impugned order is appealable order and the petitioner may be permitted to approach the appellate authority under the provisions of the Act and that the respondents shall not take any objection of limitation.
Having carefully considered the contention and perused the order under challenge, I am of the opinion that it would not in the interest of justice to further defer the matter at this stage by directing the parties for filing an appeal.
From the order under challenge no reason what so ever appear as to why the impugned Resolution have been treated not in the Societies interest which is a pre-requisite condition for exercising of power u/s 32 of the Act.
It has not been denied by the learned Additional Advocate General that while the nominal members of the Bank were converted into regular share holders all the money in the form of share capital has been received and it was in the interest of the Bank. The same cannot be said to be against the public interest or against the interest of Bank.
Likewise mere increasing of emoluments of four retired persons from Rs. 55/- per day to Rs. 75/- per day could not be said to be against the interest of the Bank without anything more.
So far as the Resolution dated January 28, 1990 by which the appointment to Shri Banshi Lal Dargad was given for the period of two years, without going into merits, it can be said that the period of two years have already expired during the period the operation of the order was stayed by this Court and that Resolution has already lived its full life. Its rescission is now of only academic importance.
Lastly grant of regular pay scale to the persons employed by the Bank as clerks or class IV employees, who are otherwise discharging regular duties, is in accordance with settled principle of ''equal pay for equal work'' and denying such pay scale will ordinarily be against the Constitutional guarantee against arbitrariness. How such an order is against the objects or interest of Society is not at all apparent from the impugned order.
It must be noted that exercise of power u/s 32 is pre-conditioned with giving of reasons for holding, the Resolution to be contrary to object or interest of Society or beyond the scope of power exercisable by Society. The reasons so recorded must establish live link between the alleged breaches, default or action of the Society and the same resulting in offending the object or interest of the Society or the same being beyond the power of the Society in the sense of rendering the act void distinct from making the same mere irregular. The impugned order does not disclose any such link between the Resolution made and the conditions require to exist before the Registrar could act u/s 32. The order which merely repeats the existence of condition, without assigning reason for such conclusion is not sustainable as it does not fulfil the condition of exercise of power u/s 32. Law is well settled that conclusions are not reasons.
Moreover every branch of rule or instruction does not necessarily lead to conclusion that such violation is contrary to object of the society or contrary to interest of the Society or the order is without jurisdiction. It all depends upon the nature of rule, and its effect on the action, if violated. It is only breach of such rule or instructions which is of mandatory character and brings the action within the four corner of the conditions necessary for invoking power u/s 32, that Registrar gets the jurisdictions to act u/s 32.
In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.