- (1.) Karora Cooperative Janglat Society Limited, Karora, respondent No. 3, is a Society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act. This Committee had been superseded and Shri Gurmeet Singh Bhatti, respondent No. 2, was appointed as its Administrator. Respondent No. 2 issued a proclamation on 6th of July, 1973, for the sale of grass growing on the land belonging to the Cooperative Society in the proclamation it was mentioned that the auction would take place on 26th of July, 1973 at 12 O'clock in the day. It is alleged that on that date Bagar Nos. 4 and 5 were auctioned in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 4,330/-. This bid was accepted on the spot and a resolution was also passed sanctioning the auction. Some persons who did not feel quite happy about the auction of this grass in favour of the petitioner approached the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies respondent No. 1, who set aside the said auction and sanctioned the contract in favour of one Dial Singh son of Uttam Singh for a sum of Rs. 7,500/-. Before taking this action, respondent No. 1 did not issue any show-cause notice to the petitioner. The action of respondent No. 1 has been challenged in this petition on the ground that it was opposed to principles of natural justice, the auction having been completed the same could not have been set aside; and the impugned order was a non-speaking order.
(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of Dial Singh, it has been urged that the petitioner managed to get himself declared the highest bidder for Rs. 4,330/- "secretly, illegally and against the interest of the Society". He took unfair advantage of the fact that he was close relation of a member of the superseded Committee. In the previous year also his uncle Jota Singh managed to get the auction sanctioned in his name for a smaller amount because of the influence of a member of the Society who was Surta Singh by name. It was also asserted that auction money realised for the year 1971-72 was Rs. 7000/- and for the year 1970-71 was Rs. 6,500/-. Another objection raised was that the petitioner had not paid the full price as is mentioned in some paragraphs of his petition, and had paid only Rs. 1,100/- being the one-fourth of the bid money.
(3.) The learned counsel for the Society informs me that after the supersession of the Committee, the Administrator, that is, respondent No. 2 alone was functioning as the Committee. It is now to be seen whether respondent No. 2 by himself could have sanctioned the lease or an authorised Registrar was invested with some powers of interference in the matter. Section 27 of the Act provides for the removal and suspension of Committees of the Cooperative Societies. Sub-section (3) of this Section reads as under : "27 (1) & (2) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (3) The Administrator so appointed shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may from time to time give, have powers to perform all or any of the functions of the Committee or of any officer of the Society and take all such action as may be required in the interest of the Society". The important words appearing in the sub-section are "subject to the control of the Registrar" and "take all such action as may be required in the interest of the society". It is a matter of common knowledge that the final authority in a Cooperative Society vests in the general body of the members and indeed it is so provided in Section 23 of the Act. The general body of the Society elects a Committee which carries on day-to-day functions of the Society. The Committee is of course answerable to the general body. In this situation, it is implicit that all the members sit together and take a collective decision. When the Committee is superseded the authority of the Society is vested in a sole individual who is appointed as Administrator by the Registrar. The statute has for good reasons provided that such an individual must act under the general supervision and control of the Registrar and be not guided by his own whims in the matter. In this view of the matter, full effect would have to be given to the words "subject to the control of the Registrar" appearing in sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the Act. The word "control" has been defined in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary in the following manner :- "The fact of controlling or of checking, and directing action, domination, command, sway, restraint, check". If the word "control" is interpreted in the literal sense then it obviously means that the action of the Administrator is subject to check and directing action of the Registrar. The action has to be taken by the Administrator in the first place but the same would remain subject to the control exercised by the Registrar. Now in the instant case, the auction of this lease was not being held under any statutory Rule. When bids are invited at a public auction the intending bidder merely makes an offer which matures into a contract only if the competent authority accepts such an offer. If the Administrator puts some property to auction then the acceptance of bid by him and all other action taken by him on behalf of the Society shall be subject to the control of the Registrar. When the Administrator accepts the bid the acceptance is subject to an implied proviso that the Registrar may or may not accept the bid. In this view of the matter, the action taken by respondent No. 1 lay squarely within his jurisdiction.;