AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Petitioner New Padhana Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd., Padhana (hereinafter to be referred as "the Petitioner-society") is a registered society, under the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (for short "the Act") and is transacting its business at Jind. As it was reported that the Managing Committee of the Petitioner-society was not working as per cooperative principles and contrary to the provisions of the Act, therefore, the Chief Executive Officer, Hisar-Jind Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited, Milk Plant, Jind, exercising the powers of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Panchkula conferred, vide notification No. 3014-C-8-89 dated 10.11.1989, issued u/s 98(1) of the Act, decided to inquire into the matter and financial irregularities and appointed K.P. Upadhya, AGM (Proc) Milk Union, Ballabgarh as Enquiry Officer in this respect, by virtue of impugned order dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure P4).
In partial modification of the order (Annexure P4), the Registrar appointed O.P. Mehlawat, Manager (Proc) Milk Union as Enquiry Officer in place of K.P. Upadhya, AGM (Proc) Milk Union, Ballabgarh to inquire into the working of the financial condition and general working of the Petitioner-society, vide impugned order dated 17.12.2010 (Annexure P5).
The Petitioner-society did not feel satisfied and filed the present writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P4 and P5), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
As is evident from the record that the powers of Registrar were conferred upon the Chief Executive Officer, vide Gazette Notification dated 10.11.1989 issued u/s 98(1) of the Act and he appointed the Enquiry Officer to inquire into the working of financial condition and general working of the Petitioner-society, vide impugned orders (Annexures P4 and P5). The Enquiry Officer has fixed the date of hearing on 6.1.2011 at 12.00 noon at MPUS, Padana and all the members of the Managing Committee and Secretary of the Petitioner-society were requested to be present at the said stipulated date, time and venue to depose their version in the inquiry, by virtue of order dated 27.12.2010 (Annexure P6).
Ex facie, the main argument of learned Counsel for Petitioner-society that since the Registrar was not legally competent at the first instance to appoint K.P. Upadhya and subsequently to appoint O.P. Mehlawat, Manager (Proc) Milk Union, Ballabgarh as Enquiry Officer, beyond its territorial jurisdiction, in view of notification dated 30.8.1985 (Annexure P7), so enquiry proceedings are vitiated, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
What is not disputed here is that the notification (Annexure P7) was Civil Writ Peition No. 92 of 2011 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act appointing the persons specified therein to assist the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and to act accordingly within the jurisdiction indicated therein.
Section 3 of the Act postulates that "the Government may appoint a person to be the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State and may appoint other persons to assist him and confer on any person appointed to assist the Registrar all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act and the rules."
On the contrary, Section 98 posits that "the Registrar may of his own motion or on the application of a majority of the committee or of not less than one-third of the members, hold an inquiry or direct some person authorized by him by order in writing in this behalf to hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a society."
Meaning thereby, the scope of Section 3 of the Act, in exercise of which, the notification (Annexure P7) was issued appointing the person to assist the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, is entirely distinct than that of the powers conferred on the Registrar u/s 98 of the Act to order the initiation of inquiry, by virtue of which, the Registrar was competent to appoint the Enquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry with regard to the financial irregularities and working of the Petitioner-society and such powers cannot possibly be restricted, in view of notification (Annexure P7) issued u/s 3 of the Act, because Sections 3 and 98 are operating in different and distinct areas, in order to achieve the aims and objects of the Act. In this manner, to me, the powers of Registrar in appointing the Enquiry Officer as contemplated u/s 98 cannot be restricted in the garb of notification (Annexure P7) issued u/s 3 of the Act as urged on its behalf. Therefore, the contrary arguments of learned Counsel for Petitioner-society "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled, under the present set of circumstances.
No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or Civil Writ Peition No. 92 of 2011 pressed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.