- (1.) THIS is an appeal under sec. 75 (viii) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, I953, against an order of the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, dated 25. 2. 61. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record as well. The impugned order is purported to be based on the Inspection Report of the Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Shriganganagar dated 23. 8. 60. The order is that on a perusal of that Inspection Report! it appears that this society had not been working in accordance with the principles of co-operation and, therefore, it is ordered that the society be wound up and also that the Co-operative Extension Officer, Panchayat Samiti Raisingh Nagar, be appointed as a liquidator for the purpose.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf raised on behalf of the State against the maintainabitity of this appeal itself. The argument is that as sec. 54 of the Act provided a remedy by way of review to the appellant, this appeal should have been preferred only after having exhausted it. We do not, however, find any force in this contention. S. 75 does not mean to lay such restriction, nor does S. 54 envisage such a restriction. An order passed under S. 54 of the Act is not appealable under S. 75, unless it can be treated to have been passed under S. 52 itself, which is itself may be an arguable point. Besides, as has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the limitation provided for preferring an appeal under sec. 75 may be lost to the appellant, if in the absence of a specific provision of law in this behalf, he first takes recourse to the remedy under Sec. 54 and brings an appeal under sec. 75 only after the decision of his petition under Sec. 54, which may drag on even longer than two months allowed under sec. 75. It may be interesting to observe here that in this case also the appellants have put up an application on 25. 2. 61 itself to the Deputy Registrar, and the same has been pending without any proceedings (not even taking notice of it) uptil now. belong as there is no clear provision in law that a society feeling aggrieved with an order under sec. 52 of the Act shall not prefer an appeal without first having an attempt made to have the same redressed under sec. 54, no bar can be imposed against preferring an appeal under sec. 75 within the period of limitation allowed therein. There is thus no force in the preliminary objection, and it is hereby over-ruled. An appeal can lie under sec. 75 even before taking any steps under sec. 54 of the Act. The aggrieved society has not both the remedies open to it, and may avail of them simultaneously or without first caring to make an attempt to have the order cancelled under sec. 54. 'also under sec. 54 the Registrar can "cancell" only the order directing the winding up of a society but not also the order appointing a liquidator for the purpose. The contention of the appellant is that neither the learned Dy. Registrar was empowered to pass such an order nor has it been passed after giving an opportunity to the appellant of being heard, thereby violating the elementary principles of natural justice. It has been also urged that the inspection itself has been carried out behind the back of the office-bearers of the committee of the society. The appeal has been opposed on behalf of the State through the Cooperative Department on the ground that the Dy. Registrar had been delegated with the powers of Registrar vide No. F. 5 (51) Coop/57 dated 7. 8. 1958, by the Government. Under sec. 6 of the Act, the State Government may by general or special order confer on any person appointed to assist the Registrar appointed thereunder all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act. The action taken by the Dy. Registrar cannot, therefore, be assailed for want of jurisdiction. As for the contention that the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard before the passing of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the scheme of the Act is such that it is not always necessary to offer such an opportunity to a society before taking any action. To support this argument, attention has been drawn towards the provision of sec. 51 of the Act dealing with the supersession of the Committee of the Society, which lays down that if the Registrar is of opinion that any society is not functioning properly he may desolve it and appoint a suitable person to manage it only after giving an opportunity to it to state its objections. On this basis it is argued that it the same had been the intention of the Legislature for taking action under Sec. 52 also such a provision could have been specifically inserted in this section as well. Not only such, a provision has not been inserted in this section, but also the Registrar has been given powers to proceed under this section "of his own motion". The argument is that when the learned Registrar is authorised to proceed of his own accord under this section, there cannot be any question for letting the affected society have an opportunity of being heard before taking any action of directing the winding up. We are,however,not favourably impressed with this argument. No authority has been cited at the bar on the point. We are, therefore, left to our own examination and interpretation of the wordings of the section to decide this point. Immediately after the words "own motion" occurring in sec. 52 follow the words "in the case of a society that has not commenced working or has ceased working," and there is no conjunction joining the two sets of words. It means, the learned Registrar can act of his own motion only in the case of a society that has not commenced working or has ceased working but in no other case. In other cases he has to work only after an enquiry has been held under sec. 46 or after the inspection has been made under sec. 47 or on receipt of an application made by 3/4th of the members of a society present at a special general meeting called for the Purpose. This cannot mean, however, that even when the Registrar wants to proceed of his own motion he can pass any order against any society without letting the society nave an opportunity of being heard in the matter. There is noting in this s. 52 or in any other section of the Act which can, to our mind, warrant an action without first calling upon the society concerned to show, cause against it. Chapter VII of the Act deals with the powers of the Registrar about inspection of affiairs of the society and enquiry into them as well as supersession thereof under sec. 51. Chapter VIII deals with the powers of the Registrar or winding up and liquidation. Sec. 47 authorises the Registrar of his motion to himself inspect or have inspected the books of any society with all the powers of a Registrar exercisable while holding the enquiry under sec. 45. The provisions of secs. 46 and 47 do imply that an action of enquiry and inspection against a society can be taken only in the presence of the officers of the society, and a fortiorari any further action against it, be it by way of supersession, winding up or liquidation, can be taken only after it has been offered an opportunity of being heard and has shown cause against it. The absence of clear words to this effect in a provision as in sec. 52 or the presence thereof as in sec. 51 would not make any difference for the purpose. The inspection or enquiry may be ordered without any previous notice to the society as it would automatically come into notice thereof. But a supersession or a winding up or liquidation cannot be ordered without first giving a notice to show cause against it to the society concerned. This is implied in the very basis provided by law for the exercise of such a power by the learned Registrar. When an inspection or enquiry report is received, the society concerned must have an opportunity of explaining anything against it therein. So also when an application is received by the 3/4th of its members present at a meeting specially called tor the purpose, the society should have an opportunity of furnishing a reply to it. Similarly, it should have a chance of meeting the report or information that it has not commenced working or has ceased to work. Without first getting the reply of the society, the learned Registrar himself would not be in a position to make up his mind and pass orders. Supersession is much lighter in action than winding up or liquidation. When an opportunity is required to be offered under sec. 51 against a step for supersession, it has got to be afforded against a harsher step of winding it up or liquidating it. It cannot be simply believed that the Legislature in its wisdom had no intention of providing for such an opportunity by not specially inserting the words to this effect in Sec. 52. Nor can it be believed that the scheme of the Act itself is such. The Act contemplates only exercise of a proper control by the Registrar, with a view to ensure proper functioning, over the societies and, therefore, confers certain powers upon the Registrar to prevent any society from deviating in any way in the discharging of its responsibilities and the exercising of its duties imposed upon it by the Act. This question can be examined from another angle as well. The order directing the winding up or the appointing of a liquidator passed by the learned Registrar cannot be called to be purely an executive or an administrative order given by an authority not having any powers over the society concerned. It is an order by an authority having a power under the Act over the society to be passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Naturally the elementary principles of natural justice would come into play in the exercise of such a function by the learned Registrar. Chapter V of the Act deals with the privileges of the Society. Vide sec. 28 of the Act the management of the society vests m the Managing committee constituted in accordance with the Rules and Bye laws. Vide sec. 27 a society is to be a body-corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and the power to hold property, to enter into contracts, to institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purpose for which it is constituted. The directions for the winding up and, or an appointment of a liquidator, under sec. 52 would deprive the society of both rights available to it under sec. 27 and 28 referred to above. Such a power would be a quasi-judicial power to be exercised in accordance which the elementary principles of natural justice only after letting the society have an opportunity of being heard. With the above finding there does not remain any necessity of examining other contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bikaner, dated 25. 2. 61, and remand the case to him with the direction that he should first let the appellant have an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action and being heard in the matter and then alone pass the order he deems fit in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. Before parting with the case we would like to observe that the learned Registrar should record his order under the various provisions of the Act in such a manner that the appellate authority may be able to judge therefrom as to what were the reasons prompting him to pass that order and how far they were valid under the relevant provisions of law in that behalf. The impugned order before us does not at all convey such reasons and details. . ;