Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Notice on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3, has been accepted by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, on behalf of opposite parties No. 4 to 6, notice has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel and on behalf of opposite party no.9, notice has been accepted by Sri Pradeep Chandola. Sri B.L. Verma has accepted notice on behalf opposite parties no. 7 and 8.
Admit.
Respondents' counsel pray for and are granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter. On the request of parties' counsel, let the matter be listed for hearing on 8.3.2010.
After hearing Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, we find that the issue raised in the writ petition requires consideration whether in view of Section 103 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited, would be deemed to be a Multi-State or it requires registration under Sections 6/7 of the Act.
The petitioners' contention is that in view of the provision of Section 103, U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited, became a Multi-State Co-operative Society by operation of law and it does not require any registration. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Shankar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Appeal No. 292 of 2005), decided on 6.5.2009, where the following observations have been made:
"In other words, by voluntary acts of the concerned persons a Multi-State Co-operative Society could be formed if it satisfied the conditions laid down in the aforesaid sections. As the definition of Multi-State Co-operative Societies indicates, there are two situations envisaged as to how a Multi-State Cooperative Society comes into being. One is registered after observing formalities of Sections 4,5,6, 7 and 8 and the other is deemed Multi-State Co-operative Societies as envisaged under section 95 of the Central Act." Sri J.N. Mathur, submits that even if the society is to be taken as a Multi-State Co-operative Society under the deeming provision, still the requirement of registration can not be done away and unless the registration is made, the society can not be taken as a Multi-State Co-operative Society.
We are, prima facie, of the view that under Section 103 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, the present society became the Multi-State Co- operative Society by operation of law and, therefore, it would not be possible for the State Registrar or the State Government to act under the State Act. We are informed by the counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents that the Principal Secretary of the department, who is functioning as the Administrator of the Bank, in agreement with his counterpart in the State of Uttrakhand, has taken some decision and by virtue of his decision approximately Rs. 8.21 crores, have been transferred to the State of Uttrakhand and some employees have also been relieved. We, therefore, provide as an interim measure that no further action shall be taken with respect to transfer of any asset or employees from one State to another. The action taken by the Administrator shall be subject to further orders of the Court.
On the request of parties' counsel, we clarify that this order would not come in the way of the Central Registrar in proceeding further and taking decision in the matter, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.2.2010 Arjun