K. N. Singh, J. - (1.) MECHANICAL Department Primary Co-operative Bank, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, is a registered Society under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. In 1966 the Society resolved to appoint Senior clerks from amongst the clerks already in the employment of the Society on the basis of seniority cum suitability. The Managing Committee of the Society test for selecting suitable candidates, it held the test in January, 1973. Clerks who were already in the employment of the Society were eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Clerk. On the recommendation of the Committee the petitioners were promo- ted to the post of Senior Clerks by the order dated 6th January, 1974. On an application of the unsuccessful candidates the District Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Gorakhpur referred the matter to Arbitrator under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 30th March, 1970, the Arbitrator dismissed the Arbitration application of the unsuccessful candidates on the ground that no dispute could be raised or adjudicated in arbitration proceedings under Section 70 read with rule 229 of the Rules framed under the Act. The unsuccessful candidates thereafter filed a civil suit No. 300 of 1970 in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Gorakhpur, claiming relief for the declaration that the petitioner's promotion and appointment to the post of Senior Clerks was invalid, but the suit was withdrawn on 3rd March, 1972. Meanwhile the petitioners were confirmed on the post of Senior Clerks.
(2.) THE Committee of Management of the Society was suspended under section 35 (1) of the Act and an Administrator was appointed under the order of the Registrar dated 20th July, 1971, to run the affairs and administration of the Society. Some members of the suspended Managing Committee of the Society filed application before the Registrar under section 70 of the Act read with rule 229 of the Co-operative Societies Rules challenging the petitioners promotion on the post of Senior Clerks. THE District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, respondent No 2, appointed Z. Rahman, a Cooperative Officer, as the Sole Arbitrator. He gave his award on 19th February, 1972, cancelling the petitioners promotion to the post of Senior Clerk. THEreupon, the Administrator of the Society issued orders on 24th February, 1972, reverting the petitioners to the lower post of clerks. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed writ petition No. 1364 of 1972 challenging the validity of the award mainly on the ground that their promotion was set aside by the Arbitrator without giving them any notice of the proceedings or opportunity of hearing. THE Writ Petition was contested by the District Assistant Registrar and others. THE petition came up for hearing before Hari Swarup, J. on 17th December, 1973. Sri B. L. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents including the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gorakhpur, made a statement before the learned Judge that the award had become infructuous and ineffective as the petitioners had not been reverted in pursuance of the award but in pursuance of the order of the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gorakhpur, dated 22nd February, 1972, by which the resolution of the Managing Committee of the Society as well as the order promoting the petitioners to the post of Senior Clerks were annulled and cancelled under section 128 of the Act. THE petitioners thereupon did not press the petition, instead they withdrew the same with premission to file a fresh petition. THE petitioners thereupon filed this petition challenging validity of the order of the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gorakhpur, dated 22nd December, 1972, and also the order of their reversion. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gorakhpur respondent No 2, had no jurisdiction to annul any resolution of the Society or to cancel the order promoting the petitioners to the post of senior Clerks under section 128 of the Act. The notice of the writ petition was served on the Registrar as well as on respondent No. 2 but they have not entered appearance or contested the proceedings. Section 128 confers power on the Registrar to annul the resolution of a Co-operative Society or cancel an order passed by any officer of a Co-operative Society. Registrar as defined by section 2 (r) means a person for the time being appointed as Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under sub-section (1) of Section 3 and includes any person appointed under sub-section (2) exercising all or any of the powers of the Registrar Section 3 (1) lays down that the State Government may appoint any person to act as Registrar of Co-operative Societies of the State. Sub-sec. (1) thus contemplates only one Registrar, but sub-sec. (2) of section 3 empowers the State Government to appoint other persons also as Registrar to assist the Registrar and for that purpose it may issue general or special order conferring all or any of the powers of the Registrar. On 24th June, 1969, the State Government issued a notification No. 3328-C/XII-CA-25 (l)-67 conferring powers of Registrar on the officers named therein. The notification confers certain powers of the Registrar on the District Assistant Registrar, and he is invested with the powers of Registrar in respect of the matters specified in the notification. But the notification does not empower the District Assistant Registrar to exercise the powers of Registrar under section 128 of the Act. In the absence of any authorisation by the State Government the District Assistant Registrar is not empowered to exercise the powers of the Registrar under Section 128 of the Act. The petitioner's averment contained in paragraphs 45 and 48 of the petition that the power exercisable by the Registrar under Section 128 was never delegated to respondent No. 2 remains uncontroverted. I am, therefore, of the opinion that respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to exercise the powers of the Registrar under Section 128 of the Act. The order of respondent No. 2 dated 22-2-1972 annulling the resolution of the Society and cancelling the order of petitioners promotion is without jurisdiction.
(3.) LEARNED counsel further urged that the Impugned order was void inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. I find force in the contention. Section 128 does not expressly provide for giving opportunity of hearing to any party but the nature of the power conferred on the Registrar and the serious consequences which may entail upon the Society, its members or its servants, indicate that the power is exercisable on objective standards. Any order passed by the Registrar cancelling the resolution of a Society or setting aside any appointment made by it is bound to affect the affairs of the Society and many a time Registrar may not have complete information about facts. In such a situation, the Registrar, while exercising his powers under section 128 of the Act, must act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In the instant case the petitioners were confirmed on the post of Senior Clerks and they have been working on that post since January, 1974. Their right to hold the post was adversely affected by the order of respondent No. 2. The petitioners were, therefore, entitled to opportunity of hearing. The impugned order of respondent No. 2 is liable to be quashed on this ground also. Lastly, it was urged that the District Assistant Registrar passed the order mala fide and on extraneous considerations with a view to defeat the petitioner's earlier writ petition filed in this Court challenging the order of the Arbitrator. Reliance is placed on the averments contained in paragraphs 36 to 44 of the petition which have not been controverted by respondent no. 2. The circumstances under which the fourth counter-affidavit was filed in this Court in writ petition No. 1364 of 1972 and the fact that respondent No. 2 was the sole Arbitrator who gave the award against the petitioners without giving any notice to them, raises suspicion that the impugned order dated 22nd February, 1972, was passed later on, with a view to make the writ petition infructuous, but I do not consider it necessary to express any opinion on the matter as the petitioners are entitled to relief on the grounds discussed earlier.;