- (1.) The material facts leading to this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent are in brief as under :- The Punjab State Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Limited Chandigarh (hereinafter called the Bank) and the Patiala Primary Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Limited, Patiala (hereinafter called the Member Society) are registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (XXV of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Member Society as well as such other Primary Cooperative Land Mortgage Banks numbering forty-two are members of the Bank. All these Member Societies are entitled to elect the members of their Managing Committees. Each district is a zone and elected members of the Managing Committee of each Society located in one zone, that is, in one district are entitled to elect one of them to represent at the time of the election of the Directors of the Bank. The said representative may himself contest the election to become a Director or may vote for a representative of any other society contesting election to become a Director of the Bank. In the beginning of year 1973, the Board of Directors of Bank ceased to hold office and the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies (hereinafter to as the Registrar) in exercise of the power available to him under Section 26(1D) of the Act appointed Shri Gurcharan Singh, Additional Registrar, as Administrator of the Bank on January 5, 1973. Two months later, that is, on March 2, 1973, the Registrar appointed Shri H.S. Brar, Joint Registrar as Administrator of the Bank in place of Shri Gurcharan Singh. Initially the term of the Administrator appointed under section 26(1D) of the Act was six months. So, the term of Shri H.S. Brar as Administrtor expired on July 5, 1973, but he continued to act as Administrator even after the said date. Ordinance No. 9 of 1973 which was promulgated on November 29, 1973, extended the said term to 18 months, though with a proviso that when the Registrar would extend the period beyond one year, he would record reasons for doing so. It also validated the continuation of the Administrator who had been appointed after January 1, 1973. The said Ordinance was replaced by the Punjab Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the Amending Act) which came into force on March 31, 1974. Its provisions were similar to that of the aforesaid Ordinance No. 9. In exercise of the powers available to the Registrar under sub-section (1D) of section 26 under Ordinance No. 9, the Additional Registrar extended on January 4, 1974, the term of Shri H.S. Brar as Administrator up to July 5, 1974. In the month of May, 1974, Shri H.S. Brar prepared the zonal list and also programme for election of the Directors of the Bank and the same were approved by the Registrar in the month of June, 1974. Six members of the Managing Committee of the Member Society were elected on May 30, 1974. The appellants who were petitioners in the writ petition are five out of them. The election of the sixth member of the Managing Committee of the Member Society had been stayed due to some civil action. But that had no relevancy for the decision of the writ petition. The appellants received intimation on July 19, 1974 to the effect that election of the Directors of the Bank would take place on August 12, 1974, and they were asked to send their representative to participate in the said election and to intimate the name of the said representative on August 4, 1974. The appellants, therefore, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4221 on August 8, 1974, for writ of certiorari or any other direction or order quashing the programme relating to the election of the Directors of the Bank on various grounds, including that the information regarding election programme had been furnished to them very late, whereby they were denied reasonable opportunity to elect a representative who could participate in the election of the Directors of the Bank. The said writ petition was opposed by the respondents and the learned Single Judge dismissed it on September 9, 1974. Dissatisfied with the said result, the appellants have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) The facts that the appellants and one other had been elected as members of the Managing Committee of the Member Society on May 30, 1974; that the member Society is one of the five such Societies which formed one zone and every one of the said five Societies was entitled to send one representative each to participate in the election of Directors of the Bank; that information dated July 17, 1974, intimating that election of the Directors of the Bank would take place on August 12, 1974 and it (the Member Society) could send its representative to participate in it and information about his (representative's) name be furnished to the Bank on August 4, 1974, are not in controversy. The further facts, that the term of Shri H.S. Brar as Administrator had been extended on January 4, 1974 upto July 5, 1974 by the Additional Registrar; that the programme, including the preparation of zones, date of election etc. of the Directors of the Bank had been prepared by Shri H.S. Brar in the month of May, 1974, and the same had been approved by the Registrar in the month of June, 1974, are also no longer in dispute.
(3.) Assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, raised two contentions: firstly that the term of Shri H.S. Brar could only be extended by the Registrar and since the same had been extended on January 4, 1974, upto July 5, 1974, by the Additional Registrar, who was not empowered to grant the said extension, the act of Shri H.S. Brar in preparing the zones and the programme for election of the Directors of the Bank was invalid, being without jurisdiction, and the approval granted by the Registrar to the same could not validate it, and, secondly, that the appellants were deprived of sending their representative to participate in the election of the Directors of the Bank because of the delay in the supply of information of the election programme to them. Elaborating his first contention, Mr. Kuldip Singh argued that the power to appoint Administrator of the bank for a term extending to 18 months was given to the Registrar and to him alone, on November 29, 1973, by Ordinance No. 9 of 1973, and then by the Amending Act, and since no notification delegating the aforesaid power available to the Registrar under sub-section (1D) of section 26 of the Act, introduced by the aforesaid Ordinance or the Amending Act had been issued by the Government, the Additional Registrar had no authority to extend the term of Shri H.S. Brar as Administrator of the Bank on January 4, 1974 upto July 5, 1974. The said argument may be attractive, but on close scrutiny, in view of the legal position, the same cannot be accepted as real. Sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act empowers the Government to confer on any person appointed under sub-section (2), including the Additional Registrar, all or any of the powers of the Registrar under the Act. It was on December 22, 1971, that by notification No. S.O./P.A.25/61/S.3/6593 (hereinafter referred to as the notification), the Government had conferred on the Additional Registrar all the powers of the Registrar exercisable under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder from time to time. Sub-section (1D) of section 26 of the Act, as it stood on the date of the notification, i.e., on December 22, 1971, read as under :- "Where any committee has ceased to hold office and no committee has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules and bye- laws made thereunder, the Registrar may appoint a Government servant as an Administrator for a period not exceeding six months and the Administrator shall, before the expiry of the said period, arrange for the constitution of a new committee in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules and bye-laws made thereunder." Therefore, undoubtedly, by virtue of the notification, the Additional Registrar could, in exercise of the powers available to the Registrar under sub-section (1D) of section 26 of the Act, appoint an Administrator for a period extending to six months. The said sub-section (1D) was substituted with effect from November 29, 1973, by Ordinance No. 9, by the following sub- section :- "Where any committee has ceased to hold office and no committee has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and rules and bye- laws made thereunder, the Registrar may, by an order in writing, appoint a Government servant as an Administrator for such period as may, for time to time, be specified in the order and the Administrator shall, before the expiry of the period of his appointment, arrange for the constitution of a new committee in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and rules and bye- laws made thereunder :- Provided that the total period for which an Administrator may be appointed shall not in any case exceed one year and six months and in case such period is to be extended beyond one year the Registrar shall record his reasons in writing for such extension." To the similar effect is sub-section (1D) of the Amending Act which had been substituted for the earlier sub-section (1D) of section 26 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that after November 29, 1973, the Registrar had the power to appoint an Administrator of the bank for a term extending to 18 months. Mr. Kuldip Singh argued that when the Government issued the notification conferring on the Additional Registrar all the powers of the Registrar exercisable under the Act, it knew and intended to confer the power to appoint an Administrator, on the Additional Registrar for a period of six months only as contemplated by sub-section (1D) of section 26 of the Act as it stood on December 22, 1971. He added that the effect of Ordinance No. 9 of 1973 and the Amending Act, by which old sub-section (1D) had been substituted by the new sub-section (1D) of section 26 of the Act, empowering the Registrar to appoint an Administrator for a period of 18 months, was that the notification should be disregarded respecting the powers claimed by the Additional Registrar under section 26(1D) of the Act. So, according to him, when no notification had been issued by the Government conferring the powers available to the Registrar, under the substituted sub-section (1D) of section 26 of the Act, to the Additional Registrar after November 29, 1973, when Ordinance No. 9 of 1973 came into force, the Additional Registrar was not empowered on January 4, 1974, to extend the term of Shri H.S. Brar as Administrator up to July 5, 1974. To put it differently, he was of the view that the notification did not survive respecting the powers of Additional Registrar to be exercised under section 26(1D) of the Act after the coming into force of Ordinance No. 9 of 1973 and the Additional Registrar could not therefore, exercise the powers of the Registrar available to him under the substituted sub-section (1D) of section 26 of the Act, to extend the term of the Shri H.S. Brar, Administrator, for 6 months ending on July 5, 1974. He sought support to his aforesaid argument from Emperor V/s. Rayangouda Lingangouda Patil, 1944 AIR(Bom) 259Amarsingh Rajendra Singh V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 1965 AIR(MP) 126, Kulwant Singh V/s. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rohtak and others,1969 PunLR 1016, and Corporation of Calcutta V/s. Gayatri Chatterjee and others, 0 63 CalWN 1002.;