AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.C Garg, J.—The controversy in this appeal is about the true import of rule 17 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (for Short ''the rules''). The precise contention is that if decision is not taken within one month of the submission of the application for membership then such application would be deemed to have been granted and the applicant enrolled as a member of the Punjab State Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (for short ''the MARKFED'').
Few facts may be noticed to understand the contention raised. The appellantSocieties submitted applications along with share money for becoming members of the MARKFED, an apex Cooperative Society under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short ''the Act''). Bye Laws 6, 7 and 11 of the MARKFED deal with the enrollment of its members. Byelaw 6 provides that membership shall be open to Supply Cooperative Societies and those Cooperative Societies engaged in marketing and processing of Agriculture and allied procedure and Government. Byelaw 7 deals with the procedure to dispose of the applications and byelaw 11 provides forpayments after admission as a member. Applications for membership after having been attested by the Inspector, Cooperative Societies and processed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies were sent to the Head Office of the MARKFED at Chandigarh on October 24, 1990. At that time there was no Board of Directors of the MARKFED in existence. Rather the affairs of the MARKFED were being managed by the administrator appointed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in exercise of his powers under Section 26 (ID) of the Act. The term of the administrator also came to an end on November 2,1990. However, till then the applications for membership could not be disposed of. The Senior Accounts Officer of the MARKFED informed the applicants that they could not be enrolled as members in the absence of the administrator and their applications would be submitted to the committee or the administrator for consideration when constituted or appointed.
Process to hold election to the Board of Directors of MARKFED was commenced by issuing a notice dated May 27, 1991 calling upon the member societies to elect one Director from each zone. Resolution from the appellantSocieties authorising its members to represent them in the election from the constituent membersocieties was not accepted as the applications for membership of these societies had till then not been granted and the name of the appellant Societies did not appear in the list of membership for Zone No. 7. This is how, the appellants approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Rule 17 framed under the Act provides thus :
"17. Disposal of application for admission of member. (Section 85(2)) A Cooperative society, other than a producer society, shall dispose of an application received for admission as a member as earlier as possible and in no case later than the expiration of a period of one month from the date of receipt of the application by the society. In case of refusal to admit, such society shall communicate its decision, together with reasons therefore, to the applicant."
The MARKFED has its own byelaws. Byelaw 7, which deals with the disposal of applications for membership may also be noticed, which reads as under :
"Application for membership shall be addressed to the Secretary/Managing Director of the Federation. Every such application shall be disposed of by the Executive. Committee of the Federation. The applicant to whom admission is refused by the said Committee may appeal to the Board of Directors within 30 days of communication of the decision of the Executive Committee. The decision of the Board on such appeal shall be final."
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants based on rule 17 of the Rules, that in the absence of decision on the application for membership within one month, the applicant would be deemed to be a member of the MARKFED, the rule being mandatory, cannot be accepted. There cannot be any manner of doubt that applications for membership should be decided as expeditiously as possible or within the time indicated in the relevant rule, but it cannot be read in the rule that if application of membership is not disposed, of within one month then the same would be deemed to have been accepted and the applicant enrolled as a member of the MARKFED. Rule 17 is not mandatory and in our view, it is only directory. Mere use of word "shall" and "in no case later than the expiration of the period of one month" are not in themselves indicative to conclude that the said rule is mandatory. Non communication of decision, together with reasons therefor to the applicant of the refusal to admit a society as its member within a period of one month of that date of submission of the application cannot read to the conclusion that the application for membership has been accepted and the applicant enrolled as a member. Communication refusing to admit an applicant as a member of the MARKFED is relevant only for the purpose of appeal as byelaw 7 provides for an appeal within 30 days of communication of the decision of the Executive Committee. This in no way leads to a conclusion that the provision is mandatory a nd even in the absence of a decision on the application for membership within a period of one month, the applicant would be deemed to be admitted as a member of the MARKFED. Generally speaking, the provisions of a Statute creating public duties are directory. The purpose to incorporate the provisions is to ensure its strict compliance by the authority enjoined to act. The noncompliance of such a duty cannot clothe the other side with a right unless it is shown that the noncompliance has caused prejudice or failure of justice. In the present case, the term of the Administrator had expired and the Committee was not in office. No occasion was thus, provided to consider and decide the application on its merits after its receipt in the office of the MARKFED on October 24, 1990, the term of the Administrator having come to an end on November 2, 1990. The mere use of word "shall" in rule 17 of the Rules cannot by itself resolve the controversy, whether the provision is mandatory or directory. No hard and fast rules can be laid down for this purpose. It depends on the language used, and the other provisions contained in the Statute and consequences flowing from noncompliance thereof. Rule 17 nowhere provides as to what will happen in the eventuality of the decision having not been taken on the application for membership. Rule 17 of the Rules thus, in our view, is only a procedural provision. Any procedural provision, In the absence of a specific provision as to what will happen in the event of nonCompliance thereof, has to be held as directory and not mandatory. Strong words are required to be used in the provisions like the present, to hold the same to be mandatory. in the present case, nothing is discernible from a reading of the rule as to what consequences will follow if the application is not granted or considered within a month. The provisions of rule 17 of the Rules are thus, in our view, only directory as no other guidance is available to hold it as mandatory. If the intention of the rulemaking authority would have been otherwise, a provision would have certainly been made in the rule itself as to what will follow if the application for membership is not disposed of within the time specified, as has been done in a number of other enactments and references may conveniently be made to Section 193(1a) of the Punjab Municipal Act and Section 6(6) of the Punjab (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 as also the provisions of Section 25(7) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
For the view we have taken above, it is not necessary to consider the other questions. As a result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.