Naginder Singh and others vs The State of Punjab and others

M.R. Sharma, J.—The petitioners are the duly elected Directors of the Moga Primary land Mortgage Bank Ltd. Moga (hereinafter called the Moga Bank). The Managing Committee of the Punjab State land Mortgage Bank, Chandigarh, which is an appex Society, (hereinafter called the Chandigarh Bank) was superseded on January 4, 1973, and on the following day an Administrator was appointed in place of the Committee. This Administrator nominated on May 14, 1973, respondent No. 7 Sukhdev Singh as its representative for participating in the elections of the Mega Bank, on a representation, made to him, he stayed the operation of his order on May 15, 1973 On August 8, 1973, he vacated the stay order and the effect of this was that respondent No. 7 continued to be the representative of the Chandigarh Bank. The petitioner have filed this petition on the ground that respondent No. 7 could not be appointed as representative of the Chandigarh Bank because his appointment was against the directive issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Secondly, the Administrator could hold office for a period of six months only under sections 26 (1-D) of the Punjab Co operative Societies, Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). In support of the latter submission, the learned counsel has relied upon a judgment given by me which is now reported as Balwant Singh v. The State of Punjab 1973 PLJ 427. In this case, I held that u/s 26( 1-D) of the Act, an Administrator could not continue in office for a period of more than six months nor can the Registrar appoint; a different person as the Administrator after giving a (tenure of six months to one Administrator.

On behalf of the respondents, view taken in Balwant Singh''s case (supra) is net questioned. It is, however, submitted that u/s 29 of the Act, an act of a co-operative society cannot be invalidated by certain defects. This section reads as under :--

Acts of co-operative societies not to be invalidated by certain defects :--

No act of a co-operative society or of any committee or of any officer shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the existence of any defect in procedure or in the constitution of the society or of the committee or in the appointment or election of an officer or on the ground that such officer was disqualified for hit appointment.

Shorn of unnecessary surplusages, it would mean that no act of an officer of a co-operative society shall be deemed to be Invalid by reason only of any defect in the appointment of such officer or on the ground that such an officer was disqualified for his appointment. Prime facie, this provision applies to the case of an officer whose appointment was either defective or who was disqualified for appointment to begin with. The reason for such a provision is obvious because bona fide action taken by an Administrator of a society has to be given soma protection even if some criticism could be levelled against the appointment of such an Administrator. If the appointment of the Administrator has to be made for a period of six months only, then after the expiry of this period he ceases to hold office automatically and section 29 of the Act could not be pressed into service to claim immunity for the acts done by such an Administrator. In my considered opinion, after July 5, 1973, the Administrator became functus officio and he could not pass any order in connection with the affairs of the Chandigarh Bank nor was he competent to pass order dated August 8, 1973. Same view was taken by R.S. Narula, J. in Ram Chander Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and Others,

Mr. Kuldip Singh has submitted that the Administrator has not been impleaded as a party to this petition and that this petition should not be allowed. I, however, find that respondent No. 4 is mentioned as follows :--

The Punjab Co operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd., Chandigarh, through its Administrator.

When an Administrator of a Society is appointed, he can perform functions on its behalf. Even if the Chandigarh Bank alone would have been impleaded, I would have assumed that the Administrator has for all, Intents and purposes been impleaded as a party to this petition. The petitioners have, however, gone still further. They have impleaded this institution through the Administrator. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this objection raised by Mr. Kuldip Singh.

The petitioner is allowed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 300/- and the same will be paid by respondent No. 4.