Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have challenged the validity of the order dated 18th June, 1992 passed by the Deputy Housing Commissioner/Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Lucknow, copy of which has been filed. as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. By that order the respondent no. 1 has initiated proceedings for supercession under section 35 (1) of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act; and has also passed an order under section 35 (2) suspending the Committee of management during the pendency of the supercession proceedings and for interim management of the society appointed the City Magistrate, Meerut as the Administrator. The impugned order has been challenged mainly on the grounds that no enquiry whatsoever had taken place against the society, the Registrar did not afford any opportunity to the Society, no opportunity was afforded to the Committee of Management before passing of the suspension order and lastly the impugned order has been passed because of the malafide conduct of the respondent no. 4.
(2.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by Amar Nath Yadav. respondent no. 4 on his behalf as well as on behalf of respondent no. 1 Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Petitioner has also filed rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no 1 to 4. Since in the instant case counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged between the parties and there are no private parties and as provided under the Second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, this petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4 facts which necessitated the initiation of 'proceedings under section 35 (1) by the respondent no. 1 have been enumerated, reference of which is necessary to be made for deciding the controversy involved in the case. Petitioner society was registered on 18th March, 1985. It has been alleged in the counter-affidavit that six Directors of the petitioner society namely S/Sri Mukesh Bhargava, K. K, Bhardwaj, D. P. Singh, A. N. Agarwal. P. D. Sharma, and A. R. Chaudhary made complaint on 18-11-1986 to the Government as well as to the Registrar/Housing Commissioner against the society on which an enquiry was ordered and Sahkari Adhikari Sri K. K. Srivastava was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who submitted his report on 24 9-1988, true copies of the same has been annexed as Annexures CA 1 and 2 to the counter-affidavit On 29-3- 1990 the Registrar ordered the Inspection of books and properties of the petitioner society under section 66 of the Act and authorised the respondent no. 4 to perform that job. In pursuance of the order passed by the Registrar, respondent no. 4 made inspection and submitted his report on 8-4-1990, true copies of the order passed by the Registrar dated 29-3-1990 as well as the Inspection report dated 8th April, 1990 has also been filed as Annexures-CA 3 and 4 to the counter-affidavit. It was alleged that on the basis of the aforesaid report, a charge-sheet was issued to the Secretary, petitioner not 2 to which he did not submit any reply inspite of the two reminders sent to him dated 24-8-1991 and 30-9- 1991, true copies of the charge-sheet dated 12-4-1991 as well as the reminders dated 24-8-1991 and 30th September, 1991 has also been filed as Annexures-CA 5, 6 and 7 to the counter affidavit. It has farther alleged that four Directors S/Sri S. D Sharma. Lt. Col R. P. S. Chaudhary, C. P. Singh and R. P Tyagi made two complaints against the petitioner no. 2 retarding embezzlement of lacs of rupees by him in December, 1991 and February. 1992, wherein an enquiry under section 68 (1) of the Act was set up against the petitioner no. 2 and Sri Lal Bahadur Singh, Avas Adhikari Ghaziabad was appointed as Inquiry Officer, photostat copies of the order dated 17-1-1992 directing the enquiry under section 68 (1) has also been filed as Annexure CA 8 to the counter affidavit. The Inquiry Officer fixed 28th and 29th February, 1992 for holding the Inquiry but it is alleged that the Secretary did not allow the enquiry to proceed, whereupon the respondent, no. 1 again wrote to the President and Secretary to cooperate in the Inquiry under section 68 (1) but it had no effect, photostat copy of the letter dated 9-4-92 by the respondent no 1, as stated above, has also been filed as Annexure 9 to the counter-affidavit. It is alleged that since the petitioner no 2 did not allow the enquiry under section 68 (1) to proceed the respondent no. 1 had to pass an order under section 38 (i) of the Act directing the Society to remove him and disqualifying him to hold the office of the Society for next five years, true copy of the order passed by the respondent no.1 has also been filed as Annexure-10 to the counter-affidavit The stand of the respondents in the counter-affidavit is that it is because of the facts stated in the preceding paragraphs, the respondent no 1 had no option but to initiate proceedings under section 35 (1) of the Act in the interest of the Society and pending proceedings for supercession, since the registrar was of the opinion that it was in the interest of the Society to suspend the Committee of management, he resorted action under section 35 (2) of the Act and made interim arrangement and appointed the City Magistrate. Meerut as Administrator for the management of the affairs of the Society, till the finalization of the proceedings under section 35 (1) of the Act. We have heard Sri A. K Yog, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no 1 and Sri Vrijendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
(3.) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since at the time of inspection made by the respondent no. 4, the Society refused to fulfill the illegal demand of paying Rs. 40,000/'- to the respondent no 4 a false report was submitted against the Society. It was further contended that since a representation was made to the Chief Minister and the Minister for cooperation and other Higher Authorities against the conduct of the respondent no. 4 and on the aforesaid representation a Vigilence enquiry has been set up, the respondent no. 4 has manipulated the impugned order from the respondent no. 1. We have perused the writ petition and we find that the allegations regarding demand of Rs 40,000/- by the respondent no. 4 at the time of inspection has been made in paragraphs 7 and 11 of the writ petition, THE respondent no 4 who has filed his counter-affidavit has denied the averments in paragraphs 26 and 28 of the counter-affidavit. THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Vigilence enquiry has been set up against the respondent no 4, which has been stated in paragraph 12 of the writ petition has also been denied in paragraph 28 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no. 4 A perusal of the alleged representation made by the petitioner no 2 to the higher authorities indicates that the said representation was sent in May, 1991 in which complaints regarding bribery against Sri S. N Tripathi. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meerut, Sri R. N. Singh, Additional District Magistrate (E), Meerut and Lekhpal Shri Ram Kailash Singh were also made. In this connection it is pertinent to mention here that it has been alleged that Ram Kailash Singh hinted Rs. 5 lakha for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Meerut and the Additional District Magistrate (E) Meerut in connection with some of the mutation cases pertaining to the society. THE allegation of bribery does not end here A perusal of the said representation further indicates that Rs 7 lacks were demanded by Sarvajeet Singh, Land Acquisition Officer THE allegations have also been made against officials of the Board of Revenue namely Sri J. P. Mehrotra and Sri S. C Srivastava for conniving Sri Sarvajeet Singh. Apart from the aforesaid fact the other fact which falsifies the case of the petitioner regarding malafides of respondent no. 4 is that in paragraph 7 of the writ petition it has been stated that the respondent no. 4 demanded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the petitioner no. 2 for submitting a correct report, otherwise a wrong and adverse report to the interest of the Society was threatened but in the alleged representation, Annexure-6 to the writ petition it has been stated as under : 'One Mr. Amar Nath Yadav, the Cooperative officer (Housing), Meerut made an inspection of our Samiti on 8-4-1990 and demanded a huge sum from me as bribe for sending a report allegedly favourable to the Samiti. In the month of August 90 he told me that the Assistant Housing Commissioner wanted to make an Inspection of our society. I told him that he was most welcome. THEn he told as to why I am going for brotherations but to spend some money by which he would manage without the inspection. He chased me for about a year and reduced his demand but by bit and finally distended to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-. He also informed me that part of the above said bribe was to be paid to the Assistant Housing Commissioner and other high ups at Lucknow. Neither I could refuse nor I could pay him. He finally called me to his residence some time in the last week of August, 1990 and threatened that the report was going to be submitted Still I could not help meeting his demand." The petitioners have alleged in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that Rs. 40,000/- was demanded by the respondent no 4 on 8-4-1990 itself at the time of inspection, whereas in the representation it has been stated that at the time of inspection i.e. on 8-4-90 a huge sum was demanded which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 40.000/- and as such it is. abundantly clear that the facts stated in the writ [petition and the representation are quite contradictory which falsifies the case of the petitioners regarding demand of bribe. From the facts stated above, we are of the opinion that the petitioners have failed to prove malafides as alleged in the writ petition and the allegations levelled against respondent no. 4 are wholly false and mischievious. Apart from this, the representation is alleged to have been made against respondent no. 4 in May,, 1991 whereas the impugned order has been passed by the respondent no. 1 in June, 1992 i.e. after about 13 months and as such the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed because of the representation made against respondent no, 4 appears to be wholly falicious and does not appeal to reason. Moreover, the impugned order has not been passed by the respondent no 4 but by the respondent no. 1. It also appears to be rediculous that the respondent no 4 who is merely a Cooperative Officer in the office of Avas and Vikas Parishad would exercise so much influence over the respondent no 1 that he would pass the impugned order against the petitioners.;