1. By way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 28.01.2010 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1342/2009.
2. The petitioner preferred the writ petition aforesaid in challenge to the order dated 11.02.2009 (Annex. 6) issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur appointing an Administrator to manage the affairs of Nagaur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited ('the Sangh') with the submissions that the said Sangh is a registered Co-operative Society under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001'); and as per the minutes dated 18.05.2007, 10 Directors were elected with the petitioner being the Chairman. It was submitted that in the meeting dated 17.08.2007, the said Board of Directors resolved to hold the elections through the Co-operative Election Authority but the elections were not conducted by the respondents; that for not holding of the elections by the respondents, the appellant and the other nominated persons continued; and that the Sangh has been working properly and smoothly under the Chairmanship of the appellant. The petitioner-appellant stated the grievance that all of a sudden and in complete disregard to the objects of the Act of 2001, the Registrar proceeded to pass an order dated 11.02.2009 in purported exercise of the powers under Section 30(2A) ibid, superseded the elected Board, and appointed the Collector, Nagaur as Administrator.
3. Challenging the order dated 11.02.2009, the petitioner-appellant contended that the order had been mala fide and no opportunity of hearing was afforded. It was further contended that the provisions contained in Section 30(2A) of the Act of 2001 stood amended by the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2009 as promulgated on 16.10.2009; and in view of the amendment, the Government has no power to appoint the Administrator. Per contra, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the tenure of the initial elected/nominated body was for the limited period in view of proviso to Section 27(1) of the Act of 2001; and the petitioner having already completed the term, not only the elections are required to be held but, for the intervening period, if the administrator is appointed, it cannot be said to be of any illegality. It was also contended that even after the amendment, the power to appoint an Administrator nevertheless remains with the respondents. It was further pointed out that the amendment was made only on 16.10.2009 whereas the impugned order was passed on 11.02.2009.
4. The learned Single Judge found indisputable the position that the tenure of the board had come to an end in view of proviso to Section 27 (1) of the Act of 2001; and, in the given circumstances, found nothing of illegality in the order appointing Administrator. The suggestions about mala fides were also rejected finding it to be a case of want of specific allegations and noticing that in fact, the petitioner-appellant was permitted to continue even beyond the term under the statute. The learned Single Judge also found baseless the submissions about denial of opportunity of hearing with the observation that the petitioner had failed to show any of his existing right and infringement thereof and, rather, the impugned order having been passed only as required by law. The learned Single Judge also found baseless the arguments advanced with reference to the amendment made in the month of October 2009 with the observations that the impugned order of appointment of Administrator was passed in the month of February 2009; and that only the 'punctuation marks' had been altered and not the provisions contained in Section 30(2A) ibid.
5. The learned Single Judge, however, found justified the submissions regarding holding of elections and observed that if the elections were not conducted despite request, such an act of the respondents could not be endorsed further. The learned Single Judge noted the submissions made on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that they were agreeable to hold elections and, therefore, proceeded to allow the writ petition in part; and, while declining to interfere in the impugned order dated 11.02.2009, directed the respondents to hold the elections within a period of three months. The learned Single Judge said,-
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is partly accepted to the extent of the prayer for issuance of direction to respondents to hold election of the Co-operative Society as per provisions of the Act of 2001. The respondents are directed to hold elections within a period of three months from today. So far as prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 11.02.2009. For the reasons given in the Judgment, I am not inclined to accept the prayer, accordingly writ petition fails on that count.
6. Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondents have failed to adhere to the requirements of the Act of 2001 and have failed to carry out the duty of holding elections even after the request had been sent to them; and the petitioner-appellant cannot be penalised for none of his fault. It is also submitted that with the amendment to the Act of 2001 by the Ordinance of 2009, total autonomy has been given to the co-operative societies, particularly by insertion of Section 30-B; and the interpretation as put by the learned Single Judge is not in accord with the statutory provisions.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record with reference to the law applicable, we find the submissions totally bereft of substance.
8. The concerned Co-operative Society, Nagaur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, appears to have been constituted and incorporated in the month of May 2007 and the registration certificate (Annex. 2) was issued on 28.05.2007. The Board of Directors, said to be chaired by the appellant, was nothing but an ad hoc committee to manage the affairs of the said Sangh for a limited period from the date of registration; and the term of such ad hoc committee had been of three months as envisaged by proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 27 ibid. The fact remains indisputable that the elections were required to be held; and is borne out even from the referred resolution No. 7 dated 07.08.2007 (Annex. 4). Merely because the elections were not held within time, no right was created in the appellant or in the said ad hoc committee to continue in the office; and even if they had continued for some time, the respondent ' Registrar, Co-operative Societies cannot be faulted in appointing Administrator by the order dated 11.02.2009. There had not been any legal right in the appellant to continue as Chairperson of the said ad hoc committee after expiry of its term; and the impugned order dated 11.02.2009 cannot be said to be of infringement of any of his vested legal right. The learned Single Judge has rightly examined the position of law and the facts of this case; and has rightly declined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction.
9. The learned Single Judge has further taken note of the requirements of law of holding elections and, in all fairness to the parties, issued specific directions for holding elections within a period of three months from the date of order. The order as passed by the learned Single Judge remains unexceptionable and calls for no interference.
10. The submission in regard to the amendment made by the Ordinance issued in the month of October 2009 has only been noted to be rejected. Such amendment has no bearing or relevance qua the impugned order issued in the month of February 2009. Moreover, the power to appoint an Administrator has not been taken away by the amendment; and Sub-section (2A) of Section 30 of the Act of 2001 remains very much in the statute book whereby the Government has direct and ample powers to direct the Registrar to appoint the Administrator until a new committee is constituted.
11. In view of what has been discussed, there is no merit in the appeal.
12. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.