K. N. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jhansi dated 1-5-1975 setting aside the resolution of Jalaun District Co-operative Bank.
(2.) THE Jalaun District Cooperative Bank is a Central Society registered under the U. P. Cooperative Socities Act, 1965. Certain dispute existed between the Bank and its workmen and a large number of other Socities. THE dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, which gave its award on 25-6-1971, published in the U. P. Gazettee dated 21-8-1971. THE award commonly known as Joshi award dealt with the categorisation of the workmen working in the Bank including the Chief Accountant. THE Bank was of the opinion that in view of Joshi Award post of Chief Accountant in the Bank should be created. Surendra Singh Sengar who was working on the post of Accountant claimed his fixation on the post of Chief Accountant Grade 1. On 16-4-1975 the Committee of Management of the petitioner Bank adopted a resolution designating Surendra Singh Sengar as Chief; Accountant, Grade 1 with effect from the date of the enforcement of the Joshi Award. THE Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies in exercise of his powers under Section 128 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965, annulled the said resolution of the Bank. Aggrieved the petitioner Bank filed this petition challenging the validity of the order of the Deputy Registrar. Section 128 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) confers power on the Registrar to annul any resolution passed by the Committee of Management or the General Body of any Cooperative Society or to cancel any order passed by any officer of a Cooperative Society ; provided the Registrar is of the opinion that their resolution or the order is not covered by the objects of the Society or is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the Rules or the bye laws of the Society. In the event of the annullment of a resolution or cancellation of an order, such resolution or order would become void and inoperative and shall be deleted from the records of the Society. The Registrar's power under Section 128 of the Act to annul a resolution or to cancel an order passed by an officer is very wide. A Cooperative Society constituted under the Act is required to perfrom a number of duties and it is free to manage its own affairs with certain statutory restrictions. Any order of the Registrar annulling the resolution of the society is bound to affect its right of administration. The section does not lay down any procedure, which the Registrar may follow in exercising his power. In the absence of any procedure, the principles of natural justice would come into play which require that before any resolution of the Committee of Management or the General Body of the Cooperative Society is annulled or any order of an officer of the Cooperative Society is cancelled, the Society or its officer as the case may be must be given opportunity of hearing or explanation. The expression "if he is of the opinion'' occurring in Section 128 means that the Registrar is to exercise his powers in an objective manner. The power of annulment or cancellation is exercise-able only when the Registrar comes to the conclusion that the resolution of the Society or the order of any officer of the Society is not covered by the object of the Society or that it is in contravention of the Act, rules or bye laws of the Society. The resolution of the Society or the order of an officer cannot be annulled or cancelled unless the conditions precedent as laid down by the section is made out. So long the Registrar does not record finding that the resolution or the order as the case may be, is against the object of the Society or in contravention of the Act, Rules or Bye Laws, he has no jurisdiction to annul or cancel the resolution or the order. The order of the Registrar is not final as an appeal against the Registrar's order under Section 128 is maintainable under Section 98 of the Act. The scheme of the Act and the far-reaching consequences of the Registrar's order show that while exercising powers under Section 128 of the Act the Registrar discharges a quasi Judicial function, as such the principles of natural justice are attracted. In Mursan Sahkari Sangh Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies U. P., 1971 AWR 753 Broome, J. held that the Registrar while exercising his power under Section 128 acts in a quasi judicial capacity and the rules of natural justice require that he should give opportunity to the person likely to be affected by his order. As discussed earlier I fully agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge. There is no dispute that in the instant case neither the petitioner Society nor Surendra Singh Sengar were given any opportunity before the resolution of the the petitioner bank was annulled by the Deputy Registrar. The respondents contend that the principles of natural justice are not applicable to the proceedings under Section 128 of the Act, as such the Deputy Registrar was under no legal obligation to afford any opportunity of hearing or explanation to the petitioner's Society or to any one else. The respondents contention is misconceived. Since no opportunity of hearing or explanation was given to the petitioner Bank, the Deputy Registrar aoted in violation of the principles of natural justice, therefore, his order is void.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel urged that the Bank appointed Surendra Singh Sengar in violation of the Regulations framed under Section 122 of the Act and as such his appointment was void. Therefore, the principles . of natural justice were not attracted. The contention is untenable. According to the petitioner Bank the post of Accountant was designated as Chief Accountant in pursuance of the Joshi Award if the Deputy Registrar had given opportunity to the petitioner Bank, it would have placed the relevant portions of the Joshi Award before him and he would have been pursuaded to take a different view. In absence of any opportunity the Bank could not place its case before the Deputy Registrar. I find considerable force in the contention. In the result I allow the petition and quash the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar dated 1-5-1975. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. It will however, be open to the Deputy Registrar to reconsider the matter after complying with the principles of natural justice. Petition allowed.;