Mahendra Pratap Singh and Another vs Cane Commissioner U.P.at Lucknow and Others

R.H. Zaidi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing Counsel and Shri Jai Singh, learned Counsel for appearing for respondent No. 2.

Petitioner, by means of present petition challenges the validity of the order dated 2131995 contained in Annexure II to the writ petition passed by the respondent No. 1. He also prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining respondents from dissolving the committee of management of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Limited, Amroha, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the society).

In the order dated 2131995, it has been stated that in the annual general meeting of the society, vide resolution No. 8 it was resolved to divide it into two societies and 33 villages have been separated from area of operation of the society. Thus, two new societies were constituted under Section 16 of the Act. Respondent No. 1 by the impugned order in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Rule 435 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules constituted interim committee of management of the society, for the purpose stated therein.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that on 29111994 no resolution as claimed by respondent No. 1 was passed. The order dated 2131995 was the result of manipulation made by the Musharraf Ali who was defeated in the last election. Therefore, the order dated 2131995 was liable to be quashed.

Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand contended that the order dated 2131995 was passed by the respondent No. 1 in accordance with law. He submitted that Section 16 of the Act provides for division of cooperative societies. The proceedings of the division of the society were taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the society was divided into two societies in accordance with law. It was further submitted that the order passed by the respondent No. 1 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

Rule 435 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 provides as under:

"35. Where a cooperative society is divided into two or more societies the Registrar, while registering the new societies and the bye Saws thereof shall also nominate Interim Committee of Management for each such society. The interim committee of a society shall function till the regular Committee of Management of the society is constituted in accordance with the rules and the byelaws of the society."

From the perusal of the aforesaid Rule it is apparent that where a cooperative society is divided into two or more societies the Registrar while registering the new societies and the byelaws thereof, shall also nominate the Interim Committee of Management for each such society. In view of the said provision the Registrar was right in passing the impugned order constituting the interim Committee of Management of the Society, which shall function till regular committee of management is constituted in accordance with the rules and the byelaws of the society. Respondent No. 1 has thus, in my opinion did not commit any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order.

The other questions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are question of facts which can more appropriately be decided in the regular arbitration proceedings if taken by the petitioner under Section 70 of the Act.

It has also been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no interim committee of the society i.e. Sahkari Ganna Ltd., Amroha, Mpradabad has been nominated by the Registrar and he is illegally not permitting the petitioner to function.

I am not prepare to accept the submission as there is no such assertion in the writ petition. However, in the event such society has not been nominated, the Registrar shall pass appropriate order to nominate the interim committee in respect of the petitioner''s society, or will permit the petitioner to continue till interim arrangement is made.

With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of finally. However, it is made clear that petitioner will be at liberty, if so advised, to approach the registrar for taking proceedings under Section 70 of the Act for the redressal of his grievance.