AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.
Writ Petition No. 4185 of 1993:-
This writ petition is filed for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents not to proceed further in pursuance of the show cause notice in Rc. No. 3423/92-B, dated February 15, 1993, issued by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Basheerbag, and also to declare the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.
The petitioner joined Kalyananagar Co-operative Housing Society as a member in the year 1967. He was allotted a plot by the said Society. Later, he has also joined as a member in Ayodhyanagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited in the year 1980. He has also served as a member of the Managing Committee and also as Vice President of Ayodhyanagar Co-operative Housing Society and he is presently serving as its treasurer. While so, the second respondent issued a show-cause notice u/s 21(3) and 21(AA) of the Co-operative Societies Act - hereinafter called as ''the Act'', calling upon him to show-cause why he should not be disqualified from the membership of the Committee as well as the primary membership of the Ayodhyanagar Co-operative Housing Society, since the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was a member of the Kalyananagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad and that he was already allotted a house plot in that Society. Questioning the said notice, this writ petition.
Writ Petition No. 4186 of 1993:-
The petitioner herein is also questioning the same show-cause notice dated February 15, 1993 mentioned above, wherein he is also called upon to show-cause why he should not be disqualified from the membership of the Committee as well as the primary membership of the Ayodhyanagar Co-operative Housing Society, since he was already a member in Life Insurance Corporation Employees Co-operative Housing Society and got a house plot allotted and also constructed a house on it. Hence, the writ petition.
Writ Petition No. 4198 of 1993:-
The petitioner herein is also questioning the common show-cause notice dated February 15, 1993 stated above, wherein he was asked to show-cause why he should not be disqualified from the membership of the Committee as well as the Primary Membership of the Ayodhyanagar Co-operative Housing Society, since he had suppressed the fact that he was already a member of Kausalya Co-operative Housing Society and has availed the services of the said Society and got a plot allotted in that Society. Hence, this writ petition.
The second respondent filed counter-affidavit, wherein he stated that inspection u/s 52 of the Act was ordered and the Inspecting Officer in his report had stated that the petitioners have become members of the Ayodhyanagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited contrary to bye-law No. 5. Hence, they incurred disqualification from the primary membership of the Society as well as from the Committee under Sections 19, 21(3) and 21(AA) of the Act and therefore, show-cause notice was issued. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable since the petitioners have rushed to this Court without submitting their explanations, and as such, the writ petitions are premature, besides being not maintainable as no final orders are passed against the show-cause notices.
Sri Raghuram, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the writ petition is maintainable even against a show-cause notice. He relies upon a decision reported in The Bengal Immunity Company Limited Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, , for the proposition that the writ petition challenging a show-cause notice is maintainable. He also relies upon another decision reported in Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Others, , for the proposition that a writ of prohibition lies when the inferior Court takes up a matter for hearing over which it has no jurisdiction. In the decision reported in The Bengal Immunity Company Limited Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, , it is held that a notice calling upon the appellant-Company to forthwith get itself registered as a dealer and to submit a return and to deposit the tax in a treasury, causes considerable hardship, and therefore, the appellant is entitled for redressal of his grievance by approaching appropriate Court for redressal, This is not a case of challenging a mere show-cause notice, but an order affecting the rights of the party. However, in the decision Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Others, , the difference between the writ of prohibition and certiorari is explained, and it is held that a writ of prohibition lies for arresting further continuance of the proceedings in certain circumstances where want of jurisdiction is writ large. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, has got jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry in pursuance of the show-cause notice. Before I answer this question, it is pertinent to notice certain provisions of the Act, Rules and the bye-laws.
Bye-law 6 of Ayodhya Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad - hereinafter referred to as ''The Society'', as it originally stood in 1968 shows that every application for admission should disclose information regarding the Society or Societies in which the applicant is a member and the details of the services already availed of by him in such other Society or Societies on the date of his application. It also further directs that a person who is already a member of any other Society and who availed of the service of such other Society shall not be entitled to similar services by this Society, except with the permission of the Registrar in writing. The bye-laws were amended on November 14, 1984 and as per the amended bye-laws No. 5 which is relevant in the circumstances, contemplates that a person who does not have any house in the City in his name or in the name of his wife or minor children and who is not a member in any other House Building Society in the same area shall be eligible for admission as a member. However, it is the case of the petitioners that they became members of the Society prior to this amendment and therefore, bye-law No. 5 cannot be applied to them as it has no retrospective effect. Thus, relying upon a decision reported in AIR 1927 242 (Privy Council) , it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the amended bye-law No. 5 has no retrospective effect, and therefore, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry taking the aid of bye-law No. 5. In the light of this argument, it has to be seen whether the Registrar has got jurisdiction to proceed with the show-cause notice. If the Registrar has no jurisdiction to enquire into the matter, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the writ petitions must succeed. Therefore, it has to be seen whether the Registrar has got jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry. In my view the question whether bye-law No. 5 is prospective or retrospective also does not arise in view of the following discussion.
Section 19 of the Act, which deals with eligibility for membership, contemplates that any individual who possesses such qualifications as may be specified in the bye-laws shall be eligible for admission as a member, subject to the provisions of Section 21. Section 21 deals with disqualification for membership of the Society, and Section 21-A for membership of Committee. Section 21 covers cases of disqualification for being admitted as and for being a member. So, Section 21 covers cases of disqualification for continuance of membership also. Sub-section (3) of Section 21 covers cases of admission of members who are not eligible for being admitted as well as the members who incur disqualification for continuance as a member under Sub-section (1), and the Registrar is invested with the power to remove them. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 takes in its sweep a person who is not eligible for membership u/s 19, and Section 19 in its turn prescribes qualifications for eligibility for membership as may be specified in the bye-laws. Therefore, the qualifications as specified in the bye-laws are qualifications for eligibility for membership even according to Section 19. As already noticed, the language of Section 21 is wide enough to embrace disqualifications not only for being admitted as a member, but also for being continued as a member. Therefore, the combined effect of Sections 19 and 21 makes it abundantly clear that not only a person must have qualifications for being admitted as a member with reference to the bye-laws of the Society, but shall not also ineur disqualification for continuance of membership in the light of the same bye-laws. In this view, I have no hesitation in holding that the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, has got jurisdiction to go into the question of disqualification of the petitioners. It cannot be denied that it is equally open to him to examine whether the petitioners have been admitted as members in accordance with the old bye-law No. 6 at the time of their admission as members of this Society which prescribes the prior written permission of the Registrar.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot assume jurisdiction when he has none. He relies upon a decision reported in Raza Textiles Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur, , for the proposition that a quasi-judicial authority cannot confer jurisdiction on itself by deciding a jurisdictional fact wrongly. He relies upon another decision reported in Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others, for the proposition that a writ should be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals, where orders are passed without jurisdiction or in excess of it. He also relies upon another decision reported in The Management of the Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. Madurai Vs. The Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Madurai and Another, , for the proposition that the inferior Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction by wrong decision or interpretation. He also contends that the error apparent on the face of the record should be corrected by issuing appropriate orders and relies upon a decision reported in Hind Trading Company Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, . These decisions have no application to this case since it is not a case where the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has assumed jurisdiction illegally.
Since I am holding that the show-cause notice is not illegal and that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), is competent and having jurisdiction to conduct enquiry pursuant to the show-cause notice, it would not be proper to go into the merits of several contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners; suffice it to say, it is open to the petitioners to raise all their objections to the show-cause notice and the respondents will consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
For the above reasons, the Writ Petition Nos. 4185 of 1993, 4186 of 1993 and 4198 of 1993 fail and are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.