# VBERPAL SINGH v. REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, U.P. & ORS

- **Citation:** [1973] 3 S.C.R. 418
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-01-22
- **Bench:** S. M. S!Kri, A. N. Ray, D. G. Palek.Ar, M. H. Beg, S. N. Dwivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vberpal-singh-v-registrar-cooperative-societies-u-p-ors-5824
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

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
supersession 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 otherwise •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 Registrar 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 proceedings 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

## Text

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
supersession 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 otherwise •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 Registrar 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 proceedings 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 Civil Appeal No. 593 of
D
1972.
E
F
G
H
Appeal by a special leave from the judgment and order dated
November 24, 1971 of <the High Court of Allahabad in W.P. No.
6667 /71.
A.K. Sen, A. P. Singh Chauhan, V. C. Prashar and Dharmpal
Singh Chauhan, for the petitioner and appellant.
C. K. Daphtary, B. Sen and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents
Nos. 1-3 (in writ petition and Appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delibered by
RAY, J. The petitioner in this writ petition impeaches the order
dated 14 July, 1971 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Meerut, By that order the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies suspended the President and the committee of
management of J ahangirabad Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd.,
J ahangirabad. The petitioner V eerpal Singh was the President of
the Jahangirabad Cooperative Marketing Society. By that order the
Deputy Registrar further appointed Ghanshyam Murari Sharma,
Additional District Cooperative Officer, Bulandshahr as Administrator ro carry on the functions of the society.
The appeal is from the order dated 29 November, 1971 of the
Allahabad High Court dismissing in limine the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that petition the appellant Yograj
Singh and others challenged the aforesaid order dated 14 July,
1971 suspending the President and the committee of management
of Jahangirabad Cooperative Marketing Society.
Two questions fall for determination in the writ petltion and the
appeal. First, whether the Deputy Registrar under the Cooperative
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 S.C.R.
Societies Act, 1965 referred to as the Act could suspend the
President and the committee of management of J ahangirabad Cooperative Marketing Society. Secondly,
whether
the
Deputy
Registrar could temporarily appoint an administrator.
Counsel on behalf of the petitioner raised three contentions for
impeaching the order of suspension. First, it was said that the order
of suspension is void because it is made malafiide and exercised for
the collateral purpose of withdrawing the petitioner from the committee of management to which he was elected and in which he
continued his office. Secondly, it was said that the order of suspension is bad because there were no supersession proceedings as contemplated in section 35 of the Act. The Registrar did not give an
opportunity to the Society and did not hear the Society. The
Registrar did not obtain the opinion of the general body of the
society as to the suspension of the committee. Thirdly, it was said
that !lie suspension order could not have the effect of appointment
of an administrator under section 35 of the Act.
In the month of April 1969 there was an inspection of the
J ahangirabad Cooperative Marketing ·Society (hereinafter referred
to as the Society). That inspection note has, however, not been
disclosed. In the month of October, 1969 the petitioner was reelected as a Director of the management of the society. Again, in
the month of October, 1969 the petitioner was appointed as a delegate by the committee of management of the Society to the Provincial Cooperative Federation. Subsequently, the general body of
the Provincial Cooperative Federation elected the petitioner to the
committee of management of the Federation. In the month of April
1970, the petitioner was also elected Chairman of the Provincial
Cooperative Federation.
In the month of Se_ptember, 1970 at the instance and under the
direction of the Deputy Registrar who had been a former Secretary
of the Federation and of1Shri Yadav_ the then Minister of Cooperative Society, the Uttar Pradesh Government nominated 10 members
and a Chairman of the Federation. The petitioner who was the
then Chairman, was however omitted from the list of the U.P.
Government. In the month of December, 1970 the new Ministry
of the U.P. Government revoked the previous order of Government made in !he m_onth of September, 1970.
In the month of June, 1971 there was again a new Ministry
in which Shri Yadav again became the Minister of Cooperative
Society. The Government then nominated 10 members in the
committee of management of the Federation under section 34(1 )
of ~
Act and appointed the Additional Registrar of Cooperative
Society as the President.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
..
•
'
_.,
•
~
\
•
;
a
.
~·
VEERPAL v. REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOCIETIES (Ray, J.)
421
A
In the month of June, 1971 a lot was drawn to find out which
of the Directors of the Provincial Cooperative Federation were to
vacate the office in order to make room for the nominees of the
Government. The petitioner survived his office in the lot.
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
The petitioner made an application for amendmen~ of. the
petition. In that application for amendment, allegations were made
that Shri Y adav and Tyagi both contrived to suspend the committee of management of the Federation. It was also alleged that
the withdrawal of the deJegation of the petitioner to the Provincial
Cooperative Federation was ante dated. The order of withdrawal .
was dated 15 July, 1971. The letter dated 15 July; 1971 is said to
have been sent by the administrator of the Society withdrawing the
delegation of th~petitioner to the U.P. Provincial Cooperative
Federation. The petitioner denies that alleged fact. In the prayer
of the petition for amendment the petitioner asked for quashing the
order dated 15 July, 1971.
·
In view of the fact that the petitioner did not allege facts ·ta·
raise any plea of malafide acts on the part of the respondents this
Court did not allow any amendment of the peti(ion.
·
The power of suspension of the committee of management is.
to be found in section 35(2) of the Act.
Section 35 (2) of the Act is as follows
"Where the Registrar, while proceeding to take·
action under sub-section (1) is of opinion that suspension
of the committee of management during the period of
proceedings is necessary in the interest of the society, he
may suspend the committee of management which shall
thereupon cease ta function, and make such arrangement
as '1e thinks proper for the management of the affairs of
the society till the proceedings are completed.:
,
·
Provided that if the committee of management sa
suspended is not Sl!l'erseded it shall be reinstated and the·
. period during which it has remained suspended shall
count towards its term".
The Registrar has power under section 35(1) of the Act to·
supersede the committee of management. The circumstances
under which he can exercise his powers are when in the opinion
of the Registrar the society makes default or is negligen~ in the
performance of duties imposed on it by the Act or t;he rules or the
bye-laws of the society or commits any act which is prejudicial to
the interest of the society or its members, or is otherwise not functioning properly, the Registrar after affording the committee of
~anagement a reasonable opportunity of being heard and obtaining the opinion of the general body of the society in a general meet-
~22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 s.c.R.
ing called for the purpose in the manner prescribed may, by order
in writing, supersede the committee of management.
These provisions indicate the circumstances under which the
.Registrar has power to supersede or suspend the committee of
management and to appoint an administrator. Section 35(2) of the
Act confers power on the Registrar to suspend the committee of
management during the period of proceedings for supersession. The
Registrar has also power under section 35(2) of the Act to make
arrangemeno as he thinks proper for the management of the society
till the proceedings are completed. The power to suspend the committee of management during the period of proceedings is exercisable when proceedings for supersession have commenced. Section
35(1) of the Act shows that when the Registrar is of opinion that
the commiHee of a cooperative society makes default or is negligent in the performance of duties or is otherwise not functioning
·properly the Registrar may supersede the committee of management and has to give an opportunity to the society to be heard in
that behalf. The Registrar has also to obtain the opinion of !)le
general body of the society. Therefore, the opinion of the Registrar
is to be followed by some definite act which will commence the
proceedings for supersession. The provisions in the Act indicate
that some definite step like the issue of a notice must be taken
under the provisions of section 35(1) of the Act with a view to
show that proceedings for supersession of !he committee are set in
motion.
It is therefore manifest that power exercisable under section
35 (2) of the Act is confined to the time during the period of
supersession proceedings. Unless the proceedings have started as
indicated earlier !he Registrar cannot call in aid the power exercisable under section 35 (2) of the Act.
The second question which has to be decided is whether. the
Registrar could appoint an administrator in the present case. The
Registrar could not appoint an administrator. The reasons ·are
these. The proceedings for supersession of the committee of
managementi have not commenced. The proceedings can commence only when the necessary step to commence it is taken. The
interim suspension of the committee of management under section
35(2) of the Act is when when in the opinion of the Registrar
the suspension of the committee of management during the period
of proceedings is necessary in the interest of the society. As no
proceedings have been set in motion in accordance with the pro,
visions of the statute, the interim suspension of the committee of
management is bad. An appointment of administrator is specifically dealt with in sui>sectlons 3, 4, 5 and 6 of section 35 of
the Act. The appointment of administrator is normally after the
~persession of the committee of management. It is true that there
1s no specific provision for an appoin!ment of administrator during
A
B
c
D
E
)1
G
H
A
B
c
D
VEER.PAL v. REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOCIETIES (Ray, /.)
423
the interim period. But section 35(2) of the Act st.ates that theRegistrar may make such arrangement as he thinks proper for the
management of the affilis of the society till the proceedings arecompleted. An appointment of administrator during the intmm
period is therefore not ruled out of the provisions of section 35(2)
of the Act, but tlle prerequisite condition to the appointment of the
interim administrator has not been fulfilled in the present case,
because no proceedings for the supersession of the committee of
management of the socie-ty have commenced.
The administrator appointed by tlle Registrar withdrew the
delegation of the petitioner appellant Veerpal Singh to the Uttar
Pradesh Provincial Cooperative Federation. Under Rule 86 of the
Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules 1968 a person who is
a delegate of a cooperative society shall cease to be such delegate
if he is withdrawn by the committee, administrator or administrators appointed by the Registrar under section 35 of the Act.. In
the present case the appointment of tlle administrator is bad as
indicated earlier. The act of the Registrar in withdrawing the delegation of Veerpal Singh is also bad because of his infirmity to act
as an administrator.
For these reasons, the order dated 14 July, 1971 is set aside
and quashed. The petition succeeds. The app~ar is also allowed.
Parties will pay and bear their own costs.
G.C.
Appeal allowed.