- (1.)By the Court.By this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the order of supersession of the Committee/Board of Directors of the Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Jagdalpur contained in Annexure P-13 passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bastrar Division.
(2.)The facts as have been uncurtained in the petition are that the petitioner is the President of Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Jagdalpur, a Co-operative Society governed by the provisions of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Registrar of the Co-operative Society M.P. Bhopal directed as inquiry by order dated 27.10.1993 and the inquiry was to be conducted by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the Branch Manager of M.P. State Co-operative Societies Branch, Raipur. The said two officers conducted an inquiry and on 30.10.1993 a show cause notice of supersession was issued along with the order of suspension. The said order of suspension was challenged in appeal before the Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior and the said appellate authority by order dated 12.11.1993 directed that proper opportunity of hearing should be given to the Board of Directors before taking action. After remand, on 23.11.1993 vide Annexure P-3 a show cause notice was served. A copy of this was also sent to the National Agricultural Rural Development Bank (NABARD) and also to the Reserve Bank of India and M.P. State Co-operative Bank asking their views and opinion within 45 days. The petitioner, as alleged in the writ petition, filed an application vide Annexure P-2 dated 30.11.1993 for supply of documents as they were already seized by the Dy. Registrar and were not available with them and also prayed for three weeks' time to reply. Some of the members of the Board of Directors filed their reply on 3.12.1993 and the petitioner also filed his reply on 13.12.1993. One of the members, namely, Prabha Shankar Pandey, a Director, filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue wherein the appellate authority by order dated 15.12.1993 directed that inquiry would continue but no final order should be passed. Thereafter on 5.7.1994 vide Annexure P-8 an order was passed stating that as contemplated under second proviso to Section 53(10) of the Act the order of suspension had already elapsed and the Board of Directors would be deemed to be reinstated but they would function under the supervision of the Collector, Jagdalpur. Thereafter the Joint Registrar issued a notice on 11.7.1994 (Annexure P-9) fixing the case to 27.7.1994 for reply but the case was adjourned. The petitioner submitted his reply under Annexure P-10 dated 4.8.1994 along with certain documents and specifically denied the charges. He also sought for final hearing. The case was adjourned from time to time. Eventually oral arguments were heard and written arguments were also submitted. However, ignoring all these aspects the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies in flagrant violation of the mandatory provision passed an order vide Annexure P-13 superseding the Board of Directors and appointing the Collector, Jagdalpur as specified officer. The said order is the subject-matter of challenge before this Court. It is averred in the writ petition that the said order is vitiated in the eye of law as the order has been passed without previous consultation with the Reserve Bank of India though such consultation is mandatory. It is also averred that the consultation which has been stated to have taken place by the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies is unjustified inasmuch as the said authority had not supplied the necessary documents to the competent authority of Reserve Bank of India, and hence there has been no affective consultation which vitiates the order of supersession. In addition to the aforesaid aspect there are averments also that the charge leveled against the Board of Directors did not warrant such drastic action and the whole proceeding is vitiated because of violation of principle of natural justice. It is also averred that the order is wreaked with bias and mala fide and requires to be lanceted is exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
(3.)A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 1 to 3 contending, infer alia, that the Board of Revenue had allowed the appeal by its order dated 12.11.1993 and, thereafter, the respondent No. 3 registered a case under Section 53 of the Act and after conducting proper inquiry the final order of supersession was passed. There is reference to preliminary investigation into the allegations contained in the charge-sheet and the reply filed by the petitioner and the order-sheet maintained by the Joint Registrar to justify the order of supersession passed vide Annxure P-13. It has been put forth in paragraphs 8 and 9 to emphasize that there has been proper consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and there has been due compliance of the mandatory provision of the Act.