Citation : 2004 Local Law (CG) 15
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a challenge to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies’ decision to assume control of the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Marketing Federation, finding the Registrar acted within the law when he took charge on January 10, 2002.
The petitioner, Gurumukh Singh Hora, had been chairman of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Marketing Federation and, after state reorganisation, became chairman of the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Marketing Federation. Hora argued that a Madhya Pradesh government notification of October 28, 2000 — which extended the terms of non-agricultural, non-credit apex societies by 12 months — entitled him and the Federation’s board to remain in office until January 3, 2003. On that basis he asked the High Court to quash the Registrar’s order of January 10, 2002, which assumed control of the Federation on the ground that elections had not been held.
The court’s judgment carefully examined the interaction between the Madhya Pradesh ordinance and the reorganisation of states, provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and the Chhattisgarh adaptation of that Act after statehood. Two legal threads determined the outcome.
First, the court concluded the October 28, 2000 notification — which extended committee terms for non-agricultural, non-credit apex societies — did not apply to the Marketing Federation. Although the Registrar’s earlier classification listed the Federation under “processing societies,” the Federation’s own bye-laws established agricultural and credit functions: selling agricultural produce, running cold storage, arranging inputs, borrowing and investing funds, and lending relationships with cooperative credit institutions. Those activities, the court held, made the Federation an agricultural and credit apex, so it could not rely on a notification limited to non-agricultural, non-credit bodies.
Second, the court found the procedural protections in Section 49 of the Co-operative Societies Act had not been met by Hora and the board. Section 49 requires outgoing committees to apply to the Registrar to hold elections at least 90 days before the term expires. The judgment says the petitioner did not prove that the board — as a body — made such a request, and the record shows the Registrar had directed the election process to commence. Affidavits filed by the Registrar’s office said no formal request had been received 90 days prior; an alleged letter submitted by Hora was not shown to have been filed by the committee. The court also noted chronic quorum problems at board meetings and the deregistration, after the fact, of the primary society that had supplied Hora’s delegate seat — a separate fact that weakened the petitioner’s standing.
Taken together, the court concluded the Registrar lawfully assumed charge after the board’s five-year term expired on January 3, 2002, and that Hora had not made out a legal basis to set aside that action. The writ petition was dismissed.
The judgment is a careful application of cooperative law to the unusual administrative facts created by state reorganisation. It emphasises two points for cooperative bodies: first, the substance of a society’s bye-laws and activities will decide which statutory notifications or extensions apply; and second, strict compliance with procedural rules for requesting elections — particularly the 90-day pre-expiry application requirement — is crucial to preserving continuity of officeholders.
Case Details : Writ Petition No. 236 of 2002, Gurumukh Singh Hora vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (08.03.2004)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Alok Aradhe, P. Diwakar and Bhaskar Payashi, Advs. For Respondents/Defendant: N.K. Shukla, Additional Adv. General. For Intervener: Prashant Mishra, Adv.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Constitution Of India – Article 226, Constitution Of India – Article 227; Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Section 10, Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Section 49; Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act,2000 – Section 2, Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act,2000 – Section 2(f), Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act,2000 – Section 79; Madhya Pradesh Sahakari Society (punargathan Aur Nirman) Adhiniyam, 2000 – Section 3(2)
Cases Referred:
Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 107
======
ट्रस्ट्स और सोसायटीज – आदेश – वैधता – संविधान के अनुच्छेद 226 और 227 तथा मध्य प्रदेश सहकारी सोसायटी अधिनियम, 1960 की धारा 10 और 49 के अंतर्गत – याचिकाकर्ता राज्य सहकारी विपणन महासंघ का अध्यक्ष था – उक्त महासंघ का कार्यकाल पाँच वर्ष का था – तत्पश्चात राज्य शासन ने अधिनियम की धारा 49(7-AA) के तहत प्राप्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए गैर-कृषि और गैर-ऋण शीर्ष (एपेक्स) समितियों के कार्यकाल को उनकी संबंधित समितियों के कार्यकाल की समाप्ति तिथि से बारह माह के लिए बढ़ा दिया – इसके बाद रजिस्ट्रार ने आदेश पारित किया जिसके द्वारा उन्होंने महासंघ का प्रभार यह कहते हुए अपने अधीन ले लिया कि महासंघ धारा 49(8) के अनुसार समय पर चुनाव कराने में असफल रहा –
याचिकाकर्ता ने उक्त आदेश से असंतुष्ट होकर संविधान के अनुच्छेद 226/227 के अंतर्गत यह याचिका दायर की, जिसमें रजिस्ट्रार के आदेश को चुनौती दी गई –
निर्णय (Held): राज्य शासन ने धारा 49(7-AA) के अंतर्गत केवल गैर-कृषि और गैर-ऋण शीर्ष समितियों के कार्यकाल को बढ़ाया था – अधिनियम की धारा 10 के तहत की गई सोसायटियों की श्रेणीकरण (Classification) के अनुसार सहकारी विपणन महासंघ “गैर-कृषि और गैर-ऋण” शीर्ष समिति की श्रेणी में नहीं आता – अतः कार्यकाल वृद्धि का यह आदेश वर्तमान महासंघ पर लागू नहीं होता –
साथ ही, याचिकाकर्ता द्वारा धारा 49(8) के अंतर्गत चुनाव कराने के लिए कोई कदम नहीं उठाया गया – इसलिए रजिस्ट्रार द्वारा महासंघ का प्रभार अपने अधीन लेना अवैध नहीं कहा जा सकता –
निष्कर्ष: रजिस्ट्रार का आदेश वैध और विधिसम्मत है। याचिका निरस्त की जाती है।
