# Krishna Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd v. District Magistrate, Bareilly and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 751
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-08-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14362 of 2003
- **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-sahkari-avas-samiti-ltd-v-district-magistrate-bareilly-and-others-40190
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965,
Section 65- Power to appoint receiverunder
the
Act
only
the
Registrar
Cooperative
Societiy
empowered
to
supersede-or-suspend the management
of society-District Magistrate can not
interfere in any manner.

Held Para 9

In our opinion the District Magistrate can
not be allowed to do anything he
pleases. In a democracy the District
Magistrate
can
exercise
only
such
powers as are granted to him by the law.
No power has been given to the District
Magistrate
under
the
Co-operative
Societies Act to suspend or supersede a
society or to appoint a Receiver in
respect of a society or to order an
enquiry
against
the
society
or
its
officials.

## Text

3 All] Krishna Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. V. District Magistrate, Bareilly and others
751
to the ground. Thus findings of the trail
court bases on incorrect reading of
evidence and ground which are not
tenable cannot be upheld.

21. In view of above infirmities and
incongruities in the prosecution case and
evidence, it would not be safe to hold any
of the accused appellants guilty of the
charge leveled against them, and they are
entitled to benefit of doubt.

22. The appeal is allowed and the
findings of conviction and sentence
recorded against the accused appellants
are hereby set aside. The accused are
hereby acquitted of the charge leveled
against them. They are on bail. Their bail
bonds are hereby discharged.

23. Let a copy of this judgment
alongwith record be sent to the lower
court incorporating necessary entry in the
relevant register and reporting compliance
within two months.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14362 of 2003

Krishna Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited

 ...Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate, Bareilly and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Triloki Nath
Sri K.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Manish Goyal
Sri R.P. Goyal
S.C.

U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965,
Section 65- Power to appoint receiverunder
the
Act
only
the
Registrar
Cooperative
Societiy
empowered
to
supersede-or-suspend the management
of society-District Magistrate can not
interfere in any manner.

Held Para 9

In our opinion the District Magistrate can
not be allowed to do anything he
pleases. In a democracy the District
Magistrate
can
exercise
only
such
powers as are granted to him by the law.
No power has been given to the District
Magistrate
under
the
Co-operative
Societies Act to suspend or supersede a
society or to appoint a Receiver in
respect of a society or to order an
enquiry
against
the
society
or
its
officials.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

Heard the learned counsel for the
parties.

1. This writ petition has been filed
against the impugned orders of the
respondents no. 1,2 and 3 mentioned in
the letter dated 21.03.2003 (Annexure-1
to the Writ petition).

We have heard the learned counsel
for the parties.

2. The Petitioner is a Housing
Cooperative Society registered under the
U.P.
Cooperative
Societies
Act
(hereinafter referred to as the Act). As
stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition,
the term of the elected Committee of
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Management of Society is till the year
2005.

3. It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the
writ petition that suddenly on 22.03.2003
a
letter
from
the
Additional
City
Magistrate (II) Bareilly addressed to the
Secretary of the society was received in
the office of the society informing that
under the direction of the Minister of
Cooperative Department, Government of
U.P., the District magistrate, Bareilly has
appointed the Additional City Magistrate
(II) Bareilly, respondent no. 2 as Receiver
of the society and also the conduct an
enquiry against the society on some
complaint made to him. True copy of the
letter dated 21.03.2003 is Annexure no. 1
to the writ petition.

We have seen the letter dated
21.03.2003 which has been challenged in
this writ petition.

4. Sri Triloki Nath, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the order date 21.03.2003 is wholly
illegal as the District Magistrate Bareilly
and Additional City Magistrate (II),
Bareilly have no jurisdiction to pass such
an order appointing a Receiver for the
society and ordering for an enquiry.

5. Under Section 65 of the U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, it is the
Registrar of co-operative Societies or a
person authorized by him on his behalf
who can hold an enquiry Under Section
35 of the Act, the Registrar can supersede
or
suspend
the
Committee
of
Management. Under Section 35 (3) of the
Act, where the Registrar has superseded
the Committee of Management, he may
appoint an Administrator.

6. Sri Manish Goel, the learned
counsel for the respondent has submitted
that under Section 3(2) of the Act the
State Government by general or special
order can confer on any person all or any
of the powers of the Registrar. He has
invited our attention to the Notification
dated 24.06.1969 published in U.P.
Gazette, Part I dated 5th July, 1969. In that
notification it is mentioned that the
Governor of U.P. has conferred the power
of the Registrar under the Act to be
exercised as follows:

"An officer for the time being holding
the post of District Magistrate of a
District shall exercise the powers of the
Registrar under Section 70, 71 and 98 of
the Act in respect of the disputes relating
to the Constitution of the Committee of
Management or election or appointment
of any office-bearer or a delegate of a Cooperative Society, other than an apex Cooperative Society, having headquarters
within the district."

7. Sri Goel has submitted that since
the power under Section 98 of the Act has
also been conferred on the District
Magistrate hence in view of the Section
98(1)(e)
of
the
Act,
the
District
Magistrate can supersede the Committee
of Management under Section 35 of the
Act and can appoint an Administrator.

In our opinion the submission of Sri
Goel is wholly misconceived.

It may be mentioned that Section 3
(2) of the Act states:-

"The State Government may, for the
purpose of this Act, also appoint other
persons to assist the Registrar and by
general or special order confer on any
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Mehndi Hussain V. P.O., Central Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and another
753
such person all or any of the powers of
the Registrar."

8. It may be noted that Section 3 (2)
of the Act permits the conferment of any
power of the Registrar on any other
person. Section 98 (1) of the Act does not
deal with the powers of the Registrar at
all. It is a provision for an appeal against
the order of the Registrar. Hence the
Notification dated 24.06.1969 relied on
by Sri Manish Goel can only be relatable
to Section 98 (2) (b) of the Act which
state that if a decision or award was made
by a person or authority other than the
Registrar then an appeal against that
decision will lie to the Registrar. In view
of the Notification dated 24.06.1969 read
with Section 3 (2) of the Act, this will
mean that an appeal will lie to the District
Magistrate against an order made by a
person or authority other than the
Registrar,
in
view
of
the
above
notification. Hence we do not at all agree
with the submission of Sri Goel, that the
District
Magistrate
has
power
to
supersede or suspend a society registered
under the Co-operative Societies Act or to
appoint a Receiver or such society.

9. In our opinion the District
Magistrate can not be allowed to do
anything he pleases. In a democracy the
District Magistrate can exercise only such
powers as are granted to him by the law.
No power has been given to the District
Magistrate
under
the
Co-operative
Societies Act to suspend or supersede a
society or to appoint a Receiver in respect
of a society or to order an enquiry against
the society or its officials.

For the reasons given above, the writ
petition is allowed the impugned order
dated 21.03.2003 is quashed, no order as
to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.9.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8317 of 1998

Mehndi Hussain

...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding
Officer,
Central
Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.A. Gilani

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vipin Sinha
Sri Navin Sinha
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226, Labour
& Service-backwages or compensationlies in discretion
of Labour Courtinterference
under
Article
226
not
proper-

Held- Para 8

In
view
of
the
admission
of
the
petitioner himself that he had in his
own foolishness submitted a forged
School leaving certificate no relief can be
granted.
The
compensation
of
Rs.
10,000/- awarded to him on the basis of
wages in 1972 is sufficient. The question
of back wages or compensation lies in
the discretion of Labour Court and this
Court has no right to intefere as held by
Supreme Court in case of M.P. State
Electricity Board Vs. Jarina Bee ( Smt.)
(2003) 6 SCC-141.
Case law discussed:
2003 (6) SCC 141

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in