ANILBHAI M. PATEL AND ORS. versus SURYAPUR BANK AGENT D.B.H. SAMITI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 698 · Decided: 08-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANILBHAI M. PATEL AND ORS. 
1-
v. 
SURYAPUR BANK AGENT D.B.H. SAMIT! AND ORS. 
MARCH 8, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961: 
i 
c 
ss. 81 and 86-Co-operative Bank-Allegations of mismanagement 
and commission of illegalities and irregularities by Management-High Court 
by an interim order, in a writ petition, directing appointment of Administrator 
in place of elected body of Bank-Held, High Court erred in directing 
appointment of Administrator and asking him to take over affairs of the Co-
D 
operative Bank-Directions issued to safeguard interest of the Co-operative 
Bank. 
Administrative Law-Statut01y authorities-Interference with functions 
""' . 
of by High Court-Propriety of 
E 
Respondent No. 1-Samiti filed a writ petition before the High Court 
alleging mismanagement of the affairs of the City Co-operative Bank Ltd., of 
which the appellants were the Directors. The single Judge of the High Court, 
by an interim order directed, inter alia, appointment of an Administrator in 
place of the elected body of the Bank. The intra court appeal was dismissed 
F by the Division Bench of the High Court. 
In the appeals filed by the Directors of the Co-operative Bank, it was 
A 
contended on their behalf that no prayer for appointment of Administrator 
having been made, the interim order could not have been passed; that the High 
Court should not have exercised the statutory function of the Registrar, as in 
G terms of Section 81 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, he was 
the only appropriate authority to supersede the Committee; and that no copy 
of the report of the R.8.1. having been furnished to the appellant, reliance 
t 
thereupon by the single Judge of the High Court was wholly illegal. 
H 
698 
ANILBllAI M. PATEL v. SURYAPUR BANK AGENT D.B.11 SAMITI 
699 
- '1 
For the Reserve Bank of India, it was contended that the appellants A 
having committed several financial irregularities and their term as Directors 
of the Bank concerned having come to an end, the question of their being 
reinstated in their elected office(s) would not arise. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD:l.1. Ordinarily, the statutory functionaries alone can perform 
their statutory functions and the court cannot arrogate to itself the functions 
of the statutory authority. Ordinarily, a Court would allow a statutory 
functionary to perform its statutory function. Undisputably, no prayer was 
made in the writ petition for appointment of an Administrator. It is not in c 
dispute that the writ petitioners had not approached the Registrar for inquiring 
into the alleged mismanagement of the affairs of the Bank and/or members 
of the Committee. They did not say so even before the High Court. The 
: 
Registrar of the Cooperative Societies in no uncertain terms had stated before 
the High Court that he could not earlier initiate any inquiry in the matter as 
a stay order was operating and as the said order of stay was vacated, an inquiry D 
would be instituted by him. The single Judge of the High Court did not apply 
his mind in regard to the said statements of the Registrar. He relied upon the 
- * 
purported inspection report of the RBI, treating the same to be sacrosanct. 
Even the necessary ingredients for passing an interim order were not taken 
into consideration. [Paras 15, 16 and 22) (706-F-G; 707-A; 709-A) 
E 
G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman Ltd., AIR (1952) SC 192; State of UP. v. 
Raja Ram Jaiswal, [1985) 3 SCC 31 and UP. State Road Transport Corporation 
and Anr. v. Mohd. Ismail and Ors., (1991J3SCC239, referred to. 
1.2. A Cooperative Society should ordinarily be allowed to function 
through its elected representatives. This, although, does not mean that the F 
,A 
members of the Committee have a right to mismanage the affairs of the 
' 
Cooperative Society; but there cannot be any doubt that in respect of the 
allegations in relation to mismanagement, commission of illegalities, or 
irregularities or other acts of omission and commission, the remedies as 
contemplated under the statute should ordinarily be resorted to. (Para 17[ 
G 
(707-A-B[ 
' 
¥ 
Union of India & Anr. v. S.B. Vohra & Ors., [2004[ 2 SCC 150; State of 
UP v. Section Officer Brotherhood & Anr., [2004[ 8 SCC 286 and Muni Suvrat 
Swami Jain S.M.P. Sangh v. Arun Nathuram Gaikwad, AIR (2007) SC 38, 
relied on. 
H 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Comptroller and Auditor General of India,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.