HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined service as a clerk in the Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Ferozepore, more than four years ago. On December 8, 1972, respondent 2 was appointed as an Administrator of the said Bank under Section 26(ID) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). That appointment could last only upto June 8, 1973, because under that provision the Administrator cannot be appointed for more than 6 months. Since no new Committee was elected or constituted during the period of 6 months, the Administrator has continued to function as such. He passed an order on September 7, 1973, suspending the petitioner from service and that order was served on the petitioner on September 12, 1973, which has been challenged in this writ petition on the short ground that respondent 2 had no jurisdiction to act as the Administrator of the said Bank or to pass the order of suspension against the petitioner, after June 8, 1973. It was held by M. R. Sharma, J., in Balwant Singh and another v. The State of Punjab, and others, 1973 PunLJ 427, that "the words the Administrator shall before the expiry of the said period" appearing in Section 26(ID) of the Act cast a duty upon the Administrator to arrange for the constitution of a new Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and that it is not open either to the Registrar or to any functionary under the Act to extend this period, nor is it open to the Administrator to disregard the mandatory command issued by the Legislature. If the Society's affairs are in a bad shape, then it is open to the Registrar to act under Section 57 of the Act to order the liquidation of the Society. The Registrar cannot use this situation as a handle to curb the democratic rights of the members of the Co-operative Society to manage their own affairs. With great respect, I entirely agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge. Mr. B.S. Khoji, learned counsel for respondent 2, has relied on the provisions of Section 29 of the Act which, in my opinion, is not applicable. There was no defect in the appointment of respondent 2 as the Administrator of the Bank. The defect is in his continuing to function after the expiry of 6 months which is the maximum period prescribed by the statute. I, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for respondent 2 that the impugned order is saved under Section 29 of the Act.

(2.) For the reasons given above, I accept this writ petition with costs and quash the impugned order. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/-.