VEERPAL SINGH versus REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 418 · Decided: 22-01-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

418 
VBERPAL SINGH 
v. 
REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, U.P. & ORS. 
January 22, 1973 
[S. M. S!KRI, C. J., A. N. RAY, D. G. PALEK.AR, M. H. BEG AND 
S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ.] 
Cooperative Societies Act s. JS-Registrar's powers 
in 
regard 
to 
suspension of President and Committees of management of Cooperative 
Society and appointment of administration-Conditions for exercise of 
power undo s. 35(2). 
The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Meerut, by order dated 
14 July, 1971 suspended the President and the Commit~ of manage· 
ment of Jahangirabad Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., and further 
appo'JIQ!ed an administrator to carry on the functions of. the 
society. 
A writ petition was filed by Y and others in the High Court of 
Allahabad under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid 
order of the Deputy Registrar. The petition was dismissed, whereupon 
an appeel was filed in this Court by special leave. V, who was the 
President of the J ahangirabad Cooperative Marketing Society also filed 
a writ petition ilJl this Court challenging the Deputy Registrar's order 
dated 14 July, 1971. The questions that fell for consideration in the 
appeal and writ petition were : ( 1) wbJlther the 
Deputy 
Registrar's 
order suspending the President and committee of management of the 
Society was valid; 
(ii) whether the Deputy Registrar could temporarily 
appoint an administrator. 
HELD : (i) The provisiOlllS in s. 35 (I) of the Cooperative Societies 
Act, 1965 indicate the circumstances under which the Registrar 
has 
power to supersede or suspend the committee of managenient and 
to 
appoint an administrator. Section 35(2) of the Act 
confer~ power 
on the Registrar to suspend the committee of management duri:ng 
the 
period of proceedings for supersession. The Registrar has also power 
under section 35(2) of the Act to make arrangement as 
he 
thinks 
proper for the management of the society till 
the 
proceedings 
are 
completed. The power to suspend the committee of managememt during 
the period Of proceedings is exefcisable when proceedin~ for 
super-
session have commenced. Section 35(1) of the Act shows that when 
the Registrar is of opinion that the committee of a Cooperative Society 
makes default or is negligent in the performance of duties or is other-
wise •ot functioning properly the Registrar may supersede the committee 
ot management and has to give an opportunity to the society to 
be 
~ard in that behalf. The Registrar bas also to obtain 
the 
opinion 
of the general body of the society. Therefore the opinion of the Regis-
trar is to be followed by some definite act which will <'ommence the 
proceedings for supersess1QD. 
The provisions in the Act indicate 
that 
som~ definite step like the issue of notice must be taken 
under the 
provisions of section 35(!) of the Act with a view to show that pro-
ceedings for supersesSion of the committee are set in motion. [422A-EJ 
It is therefore manifest that power exercisable under s. 35(2) ot the 
Act is confined to the time during the period of susp<1DSion proc.eedings. 
Unless the proceedings have started as indicated earlier the Registrar 
cannot call in aid the power exertjsable under s. 35(2) 
of the Act. 
(422&.FJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
E 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
VEERPAL v. REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOCIETIES (Ray, J.) 
419 
(ii) As no prjlOOCdings had bee!' set 
in moti~n in acoordOl!lCe ~ith 
the pro'iisions of the statnte, the interim suspens10!1. of the co~ttee 
of management was bad. As appointment of administrator during the 
interim period is not ruled out of the provisions of s. 35(2) 
of the 
Act, but the prerequisite condition to t)le appointment of the 
interim 
administrator ood not been fulfilled in the present case, 
because 
no 
proceeding for the supersession of the committee of management of the 
society had commenoed. [4220-H; 423A-BJ 
(iii) The administrator appoiinted by the Registrar 
withdrew 
t!ie 
delegation of the petitioner appellant V to the Uttar Pradesh Provincial 
Cooperative Federation. Since the appointment of 
the 
administrator 
was bad the withdrawal of the delegation of V by the administrator was 
also bad. [423C.D] 
Accordingly the writ petition and the appeal must be a!lQwed and the 
order of the Deputy Registmr dated 14 July, 1971 must be quashed. 
-
[423DJ 
ORIGINAL/CJVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Writ Petition 
No. 298 of 1971. 
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforcement of fundamental rights and 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.