Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.
We have heard Sri H.R. Mishra assisted by Sri Abhishek Mishra on behalf of the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Sri K.B. Srivastava, Advocate is present on behalf of the caveator.
Petitioner before this Court is the Committee of Management of Kendriya Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Limited, Bulandshahar, co-operative society, a Central Society, duly registered under provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Petitioner no.2 is the Chairman of the Committee of Management of the said Co-operative Society.
Petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Meerut Region, Meerut dated 15.05.2012, whereby proceedings for supersession of the Committee of Management under section 35 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 have been initiated, pending enquiry he has suspended the Committee of Management. The order is challenged on the ground that the charges as noticed in the order are too vague to justify the suspension and secondly that the petitioner-cooperative society has been singled out for the treatment only because the Chairman of the Society is an active member of a particular political party, which was in power earlier.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having examined the record, we find that the charges as noticed in the order of suspension are specific. In case, the charges are found proved, they may result in supersession of the Committee of Management of the Society in exercise of powers vested in the Registrar under section 35 of the Cooperative Societies Act.
The power to suspend the Committee of Management pending final order of supersession of the cooperative society flows from Section 35 sub-clause (2). Therefore the competence of the Joint Registrar to suspend the Committee of Management is not disputed. So far as the allegations of malafide are concerned, this Court may only record that no officer has been impleaded by name, even otherwise malafides are essentially allegations of fact. They have not only to be alleged, but have also to be supported by relevant material. [AIR 1991 SC. 1832, Pr. 7 (Jindal Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr.); and 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 89 (Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits. J.N. Banavalikar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.)].
Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that it is a case of malice in law inasmuch as at the fag end of the term of the Committee of Management, the respondents have decided to suspend the Committee of Management. The contention is neither here nor there, the allegations as noticed in the order of suspension, are serious enough to justify the action taken.
In the facts of the case, we find that there is no material evidence, which can substantiate any allegation of malafide against the Joint Registrar. Therefore, second ground of challenge has no substance.
At this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Joint Registrar is only holding officiating charge. Therefore, he cannot exercise the power of Registrar. The contention has been raised only to be rejected. All the powers of the Registrar are exerciseable by a person holding officiating charge of the post.
In view of the aforesaid, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of suspension. However, since the petitioner has already submitted his explanation to the charges noticed in the order of suspension, it is desirable that the final order under section 35 may be passed by the Joint Registrar preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order is filed before him. The Joint Registrar shall not be influenced by any of the observation made herein. He shall pass a reasoned speaking order after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.6.2012 N.S.Rathour