AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
An order passed by the Secretary to Government. Cooperative Department on 31st Dec.. 1999. whereby respondent No 4 has been directed
to continue to work as Chairman of J and K Central Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, till further orders, is the subject matter of
challenge in this petition. This respondent was earlier also working as the Chairman of the aforesaid Bank. The term of the Board came to an end
which is apparent from the order dt. 31st Dec., 1999 itself. For facility of reference, this order is being reproduced below:
Since the life of the present Board is expiring today and the fresh constitution of the Board may take some more time, you please continue to
work as Chairman till further orders...
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of section 29(4) of Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Societies Act. 1989. where
any Committee has ceased to hold the office and no committee has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules and
byelaws framed there under, the Registrar can by an order in writing, appoint an Administrator for such period from time to time as may be
specified in this behalf. The proviso to this subsection makes clear that the total period for which an Administrator is to be appointed is not to
exceed 90 days. As this is the statutory provision on which reliance is being placed. This is reproduced below:
Where any Committee has ceased to hold office and no committee has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules
and bylaws made there under, the Registrar may by an order in writing, appoint an Administrator for such period as may from time to time, be
specified in the order and the Administrator shall before the expiry of the period of his appointment arrange for the Constitution of a new
Committee in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules and bylaws made there under
Provided that the total period for which an Administrator may be appointed shall not in any case exceed 90 days.
The learned counsel for the petitions submits that:
i. There is no provision in the section quoted above to appoint a Chairman:
ii. All that could have been done was to appoint and Administrator:
iii. The Administrator, if appointed, could be appointed only by the Registrar and for a period of 90 days.
iv. That the Secretary to Government, Cooperative Department i.e. respondent No. 2 was not competent to pass any order in this regard.
Both sides are agreed that beyond section 29 there is no other provision which deals with a situation where the term of Board or a Committee
comes to an end. If above be the position, then the maximum period for which an Administrator could be appointed could not exceed 90 days. In
this case, more than ten months have expired. Respondents have not taken any step with a view to hold the election and to constitute a new
Committee or Board. They were supposed to do so within a period of 90 days. This as indicated above, has not been done. The term of the
Administrator again cannot exceed beyond 90 days. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that
even if the appointment of respondent No. 4 which has been termed as the Chairman, is treated as that equal to Administrator, even then, this term
cannot go beyond 90 days. This single argument is good enough to conclude that the respondent No. 4 cannot continue to manage the affairs of
aforesaid Bank in pursuance of the order any longer
The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is neither share holder nor a member of the Bank, therefore, the writ of
quowarranto would not be available in this regard.
II be seen that a writ of quowarranto is an information given to the Court calling upon the Court to exercise its power where somebody has
usurped an office and directions can be given by this Court to the effect that the person holding the office should not hold the same.
In view of the above, the argument put across by the learned counsel for the respondents is devoid of merit. A writ of quowarranto can always
be issued. This petition as such is allowed. The respondent No 4 shall not function as the Chairman of the aforesaid bank in pursuance of the order
referred to above.
With regard to the other allegations nothing is being said. This is because these matters can well be examined under Chapter VIII of the
Cooperative Societies Act The petitioner would be at liberty to submit an application in this regard to the Registrar Cooperative Societies. In case,
this is done the aforesaid officer would conduct an enquiry in terms of section 67. If after enquiry, it is found that the amount spent or the salary
claimed by the respondent No. 4 was not as per the rules, then appropriate orders in accordance with section 69 can always be passed. It is,
however, for the petitioner to take appropriate steps in this regard
The learned counsel for the respondent. No. 4 submits that on account of passing o' this said judgment, the functioning of the Bank would suffer.
Keeping in view the above submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, this order shall remain in abeyance upto 30th Nov.,
2000. In the meanwhile, respondents are at liberty to take steps as are permissible. In any case, the preliminary steps with a view to hold the
election would be initiated, and the election would be held in accordance with law.
Petition disposed of in the manner indicated above.