Karam Chand vs Additional Registrar (C)

H.S. Bedi, J.—The petitioner was appointed a Salesman with respondent No. 4 vide resolution of the said respondent dated November 22,

1989. It appears from the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the meeting, in which the resolution aforesaid was passed, was

irregular and not held according to rules and accordingly, a letter was addressed by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 for cancellation of the

proceedings of the said meeting. On account of the aforesaid letter, a show cause notice Annexure P1 was issued by respondent No. 2 to the

exmanaging committee members of respondent No. 4 but the aforesaid members refused to accept service of the notice. Therefore, respondent

No. 2 exercising powers of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, cancelled the resolution dated November 12, 1989 by exercising the powers

conferred under Rule 80 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963. As a consequence of the resolution Annexure P2 having been annulled,

the petitioner was dismissed from service vide Annexure P3 dated October 19, 1990. Aggrieved against the order Annexure P3, the petitioner

preferred a revision petition before Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, but the same was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner has

approached this Court praying that Annexures P2 and P3 be quashed.

The only argument addressed before me by Mr. Amar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the notice Annexure P1 should have been

addressed to respondent No. 4 or the Liquidator who was holding the charge of the said society and the service of notice on the exmembers of the

managing committee in fact, did not amount to compliance with the rules of natural justice.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that service of notice Annexure P1 on the Exmembers of the committee was not

sufficient compliance with the rules of natural justice as the resolution Annexure P2 had been passed by the Society and not by the individual

members concerned. The notice for the annulment of the resolution dated 22.11.1989, therefore, should have been addressed to the Society, if in

existence or to the Liquidator who was holding the charge as he alone, who having the custody of the record, could have justified the action of the

committee before the Deputy Registrar, who passed the order Annexure P2.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. Annexures P2 and P3 are quashed. However, it will be open to the authorities to issue

a fresh notice and to pass appropriate orders in the case. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.