Aniruddha Bose, J. - (1.) THE appellant No. 3, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies of Andaman & Nicobar Administration had passed an order on 14th October, 2011, being order No. 780 directing winding up of the affairs of the writ petitioners/respondent No. 1, the Avis Islands Coconut Plantation Cooperative Society Ltd. This order was passed in exercise of power conferred upon the Registrar under section 57(2) (b) of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Cooperative Societies Regulations, 1973 (the 1973 Regulations). This order was preceded by a notice to show cause, to which the society had given written objection.
(2.) THE main ground on which the society was directed to be wound -up was that the said society had ceded its autonomy and independence by entering into a joint venture agreement with a private organisation, Barefoot Resort Pvt. Ltd. Chennai. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the order of winding up before the Lieutenant Governor, who is the statutory appellate authority. By an order passed on 12th May, 2012 the Lieutenant Governor also dismissed the appeal. The Society filled a writ petition for quashing the show cause notice as well as the above -referred orders of the Registrar and the Lieutenant Governor dated 14th October, 2011 and 12th May, 2012 respectively. This writ petition was registered as WP No. 428 of 2012. The aforesaid orders were assailed on various ground before the learned Single Judge. The only issue which was, however, addressed in the judgement delivered by the learned Single Judge was that the writ petitioner did not get a fair opportunity to present his case before the Registrar. The learned Single Judge also found that the petitioner did not get reasonable opportunity for making representation on the penalty proposed. Referring to two decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Erusian Equipment and Chemicals v. State of West Bengal [ : (1975) 1 SCC 70] and Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar and others [ : (1989) 1 SCC 229], the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Registrar. It was held and directed by the learned Single Judge in the judgement delivered on 5th August, 2014: - - "By the order impugned, the Registrar of Co -operative Societies directed winding up of the co -operative society. The power of winding up should be taken recourse to as a last resort. The writ petitioner did not get a fair opportunity to present his case before the Registrar. The writ petitioner did not get reasonable opportunity for making representation on the penalty proposed in the background of factual position and legal implication arising there under. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Erusian Equipment and Chemicals versus State of West Bengal reported in : (1975) 1 Supreme Court Cases 70 held that fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist. The Supreme Court of India in Raghunath Thakur versus State of Bihar and others reported in : (1989) 1 Supreme Court Cases 229 held that blacklisting of any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against the order. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies directing winding up of co -operative society and direct the Registrar of Co -operative Societies to consider reply of the writ petitioner afresh, after giving its representative or representatives an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. However, I clarify, by way of abundant caution, that I have not gone into the merits of the claim and the counter claim of the parties. All points are left open." The Administration as well as Registrar have preferred this appeal against the said judgement. In the judgement under appeal, it has not been specifically spelt out as to whether fair opportunity in the instant case would have implied giving opportunity of oral hearing to the society or not. But if recordal of submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the judgement under appeal, reference to the two authorities, and in particular the judgement in the case of Raghunath Thakur (Supra) and the ultimate direction upon the Registrar to give representative of the society opportunity of hearing are compositely considered, it would be apparent that not giving opportunity of oral hearing to the society was found to be the factor by the learned Single Judge, which robbed the decision making process of fairness culminating in the direction for winding up of the society.
(3.) MR . Tabraiz and Ms. Nag, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the society respectively have addressed us primarily on the question as to whether opportunity of oral hearing was necessary to be given to the society by the Registrar, and we shall confine our examination in this appeal on this point primarily. We shall also deal with the issue as to whether it was incumbent on the Registrar to afford opportunity of making representation in relation to imposition of penalty.;