IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16315 of 2010 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD & 3 - Petitioner(s) Versus CHIEF CENTRAL REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND DEPUTY & 4 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR NV SOLANKI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4. MR SAURABH G AMIN for Respondent(s) : 1, MR AMAR N BHATT for Respondent(s) : 2, MR DIPAK R DAVE for Respondent(s) : 3, None for Respondent(s) : 4, MR PRANAV DAVE ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 5, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30/07/2012
1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s;
(b) to issue a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari or any other writ order or directions in the nature of mandamus or certiorari under the Constitution of India, inter alia directing the Chief Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation viz, the respondent No.1 herein to proceed forthwith to take every legal step as envisages and prescribed in section 83 of the MultiState Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 in exercise of his powers thereunder against all such past members of the Board of Directors of the GIC bank who were in management of such bank till their suppression w.e.f. 20.09.2008 and those others responsible for their alleged misdeeds as well as acts of willful negligence and/or acts of misuse of powers or fraudulent acts allegedly committed by them as described in FIR No. 10/10 filed by the Detective police Inspector, CID Crime, Prevention of Economic Cell, Camp, Ahmedabad.
(c) An appropriate writ, order or direction be issued against the respondent No.1 herein to complete his such inquiry under Section 83 of the above Act against the erring personnel within such stipulated time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant for the purpose and direct him to produce his report or order passed by him thereupon before this Hon'ble Court.
(d) Taking into consideration the most pathetic and deplorable as well as precarious condition confronted by huge depositors, an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued against the Chief General Manager of Reserve Bank of India, the respondent No.2 herein inter alia directing him to disclose precisely his stand, strategy and/or steps he intends to take or adopt hence, onwards with regard to and in the context of the present financial position of the GIC bank including clearance on his part about his proposed steps which are in the direction of revival of the GIC Bank or not?
Or that they are otherwise than in such direction? RBI be further directed to constitute a committee of experts to attain revival of the GIC bank and/ or to resolve the captioned issue of such bank in the best interest of its depositors, small investors etc., as early as possible.
(e) An appropriate writ, order or direction be issued against the respondent No.2 RBI directing it to mould, revise and modify its direction issued under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 in respect of GIC Bank vide its letter dated 16.09.2008 in such manner as may enable the small investors or depositors of the GIC Bank to get an amount atleast upto the limit of Rs. 25000 per deposit holder or such amount as may be found appropriate to be permitted by this Hon'ble Court to be received by such persons instead of its present limit of Rs. 1000/ fixed by the RBI. RBI may be directed to formulate suitable scheme or arrangement in this regard to sub serve the interest of all the various deposit holders of the GIC Bank.
(f) An appropriate writ, order or direction be issued against the Government of India, viz., respondent No.4 herein inter alia directing it to place necessary particulars with regard to the kind of steps it intends to take concerning the captioned issue of GIC Bank including any proposal on its part for declaration of any economic relief package in favour of GIC Bank or such other remedy for achieving revival of the GIC Bank in the ultimate analysis.
2.0 Mr. Amin, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 stated that the conditions required to be fulfilled for initiation of action under Section 78/83 of the MultiState Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 ( for shot “ the MSCS Act, 2002”) were not fulfilled. Prima facie it appears to be true. Therefore, it is not possible for the Central Registrar to take action under section 83 of the MSCS Act, 2002. There is no provision for suomotu inquiry or inspection under the MSCS Act, 2002. Section 83 of the MSCS Act, 2002 is reads as under:
“83. Repayment, etc. (1) If in the course of audit, inspection or the winding up of a multiState cooperative society, it is found that any person, who is or was entrusted with the organization or management of such society or who is or has at any time been an officer or an employee of the society, has made any payment contrary to this Act, or the byelaws or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or willful negligence or has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to such society, the Central Registrar may, of his own motion or on the application of the board, liquidator or any creditor inquire himself or direct any person authorized by him, by an order in writing in this behalf to inquire into the conduct of such person within a period of two years from the date of the report of the audit, inspection or inquiry or the date of the order of winding up, as the case may be;
Provided that where the Central Registrar is satisfied that such inquiry could not be commenced during the period of two years aforesaid on account of fraud or concealment of facts, he may make or direct the inquiry to be made within such period not exceeding six years from the date of the report of the audit, inspection or inquiry or the date of the order of winding up as he thinks fit, (2) Where an inquiry is made under subsection (1) the Central Registrar may after giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, make an order requiring him to repay to restore the money or property or any part thereof with interest at such rate or to pay contribution and costs of compensation to such extent, as the Central Registrar may consider just and equitable.”
3.0 At this stage Mr. Dave leaned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 Administrators stated that audit report of the bank for the last five years will be given to respondent No.1 within a period of two week from today.
4.0 In that view of the matter interest of justice would be met by passing the following order:
In view of the statement made by Mr. Dave, it is directed that Administrator of respondent Bank will supply the last five years' audit report to respondent No.1 as approved by the Chartered Accountant and General Board of the Society within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order. The Central Registrar will examine the matter and will initiate the action as per Section 83 of the MSCS Act, 2002 after giving proper opportunity to the affected parties and also to the petitioner.
5.0 Since the licence is already cancelled and Administrator of the bank is appointed, the prayer for direction under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 by the respondent No.2 would not survive.
6.0 With the above observation the petition stands disposed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*