- (1.) CHALLENGING the interim order dated 14th February, 2008 passed in the writ application W. P 334 (w) of 2008, this appeal has been preferred by one Sri ranjit Bose, since deceased, who was respondent no. 4 in the writ application. The interim order challenged under the said appeal registered as AST 91 of 2008 read such: " The petitioners are questioning the order of one S. D Indoria, Chief Director (Co-op) in the office of the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, dated December 31, 2007 directing the Chairman of the first petitioner not to appoint any employee in the co-operative society during the progress of the election process. The first petitioner is a multi-state co-operative society governed by the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Since election of the society was not held for a long time for constituting the board of directors, an order was made by this court directing the central registrar to take necessary steps for holding the election. There is no dispute that the process initiated by the central registrar is in progress. When the election process was in progress, the society decided to appoint certain persons on temporary basis. Feeling aggrieved, the fourth respondent filed an application intending to initiate arbitration proceedings. He also applied for interim relief. When his applications were pending, the chief director issued the impugned order. The question is whether the chief director was competent to make the order. While Mr. Bandyopadhyay, senior counsel for the petitioners, argued from day one that the order was not made by the authority as an arbitrator appointed to adjudicate the dispute raised by the fourth respondent, Mr. De, senior counsel for the fourth respondent, contended that the authority made the order only in the capacity of an arbitrator, and hence the petitioners were not entitled to approach the writ court. His contention was that their remedy, if any, was under s. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. For ascertaining whether the order was actually made by the authority as an arbitrator, Ms. Bhattacharyya, counsel for the authorities, was directed to produce the records in original. She has submitted today that she is not in a position to produce the records, but she has received written instructions from the authorities clearly stating that the authority issuing the impugned order did not issue it in the capacity of an arbitrator appointed in any dispute case, but in the capacity of an official in the office of the central registrar. On these facts, the question has arisen whether the authority was at all competent to make the order. While Mr. Bandyopadhyay has said that the authority had no power to make such an order as he made, Mr. De has submitted that in view of the provisions in s. 122 of the 2002 Act the authority was quite competent to issue the order. He has said that during progress of the election process there was absolutely no justification for the members of the erstwhile board, a defunct one, to go on making appointment, and thus creating an unbearable liability of the society. He has said that at the meeting concerned no item on the agenda was there regarding recruitment of any employee to be appointed in the society. His contention is that documents were fabricated and apparent fraud was committed by the persons concerned. On these facts he argues that the authority was competent to give directions in his administrative capacity. After going through the provisions in s. 122, I am unable to accept Mr. De's contention. Section 122 empowered the central government to give certain directions to specified multi-state co-operative societies in public interest. The order in question was not issued by the central government. The authority acted completely without jurisdiction. He had no power to give the directions which he gave regarding appointment made by the society. The matter was agitated by the fourth respondent by initiating a dispute case. A duly appointed arbitrator was to consider the question of making any interim order. A duly appointed arbitrator was to consider the question of making any interim order. These all are my tentative views expressed for the purposes of admission and interim relief, and subject, definitely, to the final opinion to be expressed in the case. On these facts and in the face the provisions of law, I am satisfied that the petitioners have made out a strong prima facie case for admission and stay. For these reasons, I admit the writ petition and order that during its pendency operation of the impugned order dated December 31st, 2007 shall remained stayed. I however, make it clear that all appointments made by the society and in connection wherewith the impugned order was made shall abide by the result of the writ petition. The respondents shall file opposition within six weeks, as prayed for; reply, if any, shall be filed by one week thereafter. List the writ petition for final hearing after eight weeks. "
(2.) THE writ application was moved by E and N F Railway Junior Co-operative Credit Society Limited, a society registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 represented by the Chairman and by one Prafulla Kumar Dutta, Secretary/chief Executive of the said Credit Society as writ petitioners, assailing the decision dated 31st December, 2007 passed by Chief Director (Cooperative) office of Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation whereby and whereunder the temporary appointments made in total 110 in numbers by the Board of the said Co-operative Society during the time when election process already started for election of the Board of Directors by appointing one Returning officer to conduct the election in terms of order passed by the High Court at calcutta in earlier writ petition No. 19370 of 2005, was declared as unjustified and violative of free and fair election and with that finding the said officer restrained the Co-operative Society from giving any appointment letter and from appointing during election process. The impugned letter of the Chief Director, Co operative which was the subject matter of writ application reads such: "no. L-11014/41/02-Landm (Pt) Government of India Office of Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies Ministry of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Cooperation Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi dated: December 31, 2007 to the Chairman, eandnf Railway Junior Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. , eastern Railway, DRM Office Building, sealdah, Calcutta-700 014 sub: Appointment of employees in E and NF Railway Junior Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. during the pendency of the election process. Sir,
(3.) IT has been brought to the notice of the Central Registrar that the Society has engaged 85 candidates for the post of Record Sorter-cum-Chaser while the election process in the Society is in motion. It is alleged that these appointments have been made after appointment of the Returning Officer to conduct elections of the Society pursuant to the directions y the Hon. High Curt of Calcutta. 2. You are aware that pursuant to the orders of Hon. High Court of Calcutta in writ petition no. 19370 of 2005 dated 3. 10. 2007 the Returning Officer was appointed vide this Office Order dated 16. 11. 2007 to conduct the elections of members of Board of Directors and office-bearers of the Society. The elections process is going on and the Returning Officer, as understood is in process of finalizing the members list eligible to participate in the election. It has been brought to the notice that the alleged above said appointments have been made after the appointment of the Returning Officer and initiation of the election process. The appointment of such a large number of employees by an out going Board while the election process is on does not seem to be justified and violative of the principle of free and fair election. You are, therefore, hereby directed to refrain from making any such appointments during the election process if there is any such move on your part. 3. This issues with approval of Joint Secretary (Candc) and Central registrar of Cooperative Societies. Yours faithfully, (S. D. Indoria) Chief Director (Coop)Copy to: Shri Ranjit Bose, 92, Sonar Bongala d. P. Nagar, Belghoria, Kolkata-700 056 ";