http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4586 of 2007

PETITIONER: Ram Nandan Singh & Ors

RESPONDENT: AG Office Employees Co-op  House Construction Society Ltd.,Ranchi & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/09/2007

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & H.S. BEDI

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT (arising out of  SLP(C) No. 8265/2006)

       S.B.SINHA,J.

               Leave granted.         (1)     This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated  6.1.2006 of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Letters Patent Appeal  No. 101 of 2004 whereby and whereunder it was directed: \023Having heard the parties, we are of the view that this Court having  become functus officio, after disposal of the appeal, is not required to  decide any question in the present appeal, but only with a view to enable  the competent authority to pass order under Section 41 of the Co- operative Societies Act and the other related provisions of the said Act  and to find out whether nullification of some of the allotments is to be  made or any appropriate steps in that behalf will have to be taken, the  case is remitted to the competent authority i.e. Registrar, Co-operative  Societies, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who will not rely on the  earlier report, submitted by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies,  Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having been superseded by the  report, submitted by Mr. Justice (Retd.) Vikramaditya Prasad.  The  Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ranchi, will look into the enquiry  report and after giving opportunity to the appellants and other necessary  parties, will determine the question as to what action, if any, is required  to be taken in accordance with law, preferably within four months from  the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.  It will be open to  the appellants to point out the defect, if any, in the enquiry report,  submitted by Mr. Justice (Retd.) Vikramaditya Prasad. The Registrar,  Co-operative Societies, will apply its independent mind and will  determine as to whether he will differ with the enquiry report or will  accept the same or part thereof and what action is required to be taken  under the law.  No further order is required to be passed in the present  case.\024             (3)     Lands were acquired in the year 1970 for the benefit of the  members of Respondent No.1-Society.  It is stated that in the year 1983 by purported  amendments carried out in the Rules, outsiders were also allowed allotment of lands by  the said Society. When the question whether such amendments should be permitted or  not was pending consideration before the competent authorities, serious irregularities  by the members of the Managing Committee were pointed out. An inquiry was directed  to be made by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies on the intervention of the  Chief Secretary of the State. The said authority submitted its report. On the basis of  the said report, the Managing Committee of the Society was placed under suspension.            (4)     A writ petition filed thereagainst by the Managing Committee of  the Society  was dismissed.   On an intra court appeal having been preferred  thereagainst being Letters Patent Appeal No.101 of 2004, the Division Bench of the  High Court passed the following order on 10.3.2004: \023It is seen that the learned single Judge has directed the Circle Officer,  Ranchi to be in-charge of the affairs of the Society temporarily.  We direct

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

him to take charge temporarily as per the direction of the learned single  Judge, if he has not already done so.  If warranted, the Superintendent of  Police, Ranchi is directed to give him the necessary protection to comply  with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the judgment  under appeal.  He will also make a search to find out whether the  concerned amendment of the By-laws of the Society had been approved by  the Registrar and whether any document is available in the Society in that  behalf and if such a document is available, make it available to the  Government counsel for being produced in this Court.\024 (5)     By another order dated 18.5.2004(CAV on 20.4.2004),the Division Bench  upon consideration of all

aspects of the matter directed  as under:

\023Then, the question is, who would conduct the inquiry.  According to  learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, it can only be  conducted by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.  Counsel for the  intervener went to the extent of submitting that the inquiry should be  entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), since it can be  seen that it was sought to be thwarted by influential persons at every  stage.  Consistent with our finding that the Government has the power to  make an enquiry, the same can be entrusted to any agency.  The learned  Advocate General submitted that the inquiry must be ordered by this  Court, so that any possible impediment to the inquiry could be  eliminated.  From the submissions of the learned Advocate General, the  impression we gather is that it is possible that every attempt would be  made to scuttle a proper inquiry into the complaint, unless there is  backing of the authority of this Court for the conduct of the inquiry.  We  do not think that at this stage, we should entrust the inquiry to the  Central Bureau of Investigation.  We think that it will be appropriate to  direct the inquiry to be made by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies  as authorized by this order of this Court.  The Registrar of Cooperative  Societies will be directly answerable to this Court for the proper conduct  of the inquiry and he will ensure that a thorough inquiry is conducted  after adhering to all principles of natural justice.  If the finding at the  inquiry to be submitted before this Court, justifies action under section  41 of the Act and the other related provisions of the Cooperative  Societies Act and the nullification of some of the allotments made,  appropriate steps in that behalf will have to be taken by the Registrar.   These aspects can also be taken up and considered by this Court after  the inquiry is completed.  Suffice it to say that in suppression of the  direction of the learned Single Judge, we direct thorough inquiry to be  made into the complaints by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, after  giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellants and to the  interveners.  The report of the inquiry in a sealed cover will be produced  before this Court by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and  appropriate follow up orders obtained.  The enquiry will be completed in  three months.  The Registrar of Cooperative Societies will be answerable  to this Court for the conduct of the enquiry.  On the completion of the  inquiry, it will also be open to the appellants to move this Court for an  appropriate direction regarding the management of the Society...\024  (emphasis supplied)           With the aforementioned directions, the appeal was dismissed.         (6)     However, the question in regard to the correctness or otherwise  of the report of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies again having been raised, the  Division Bench of the High Court by an order dated 2.9.2005 directed as under:

\0234.       Having heard the learned counsels of the respective parties on the  said report and after considering the provisions of Section 41 of the Bihar  Cooperative Societies Act, and having further regard to the suggestions  made by Mr. Y.V. Giri appearing for the appellants that the report of the  enquiry by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was biased and did not  present a true picture of the situation, we are of the view that a fresh  enquiry may be made by a retired High Court Judge at the expense of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

appellants so that the controversy can be set at rest.

5.      Having regard to the above, we appoint Mr. Vikramaditya Prasad, a  former Judge of this Court to hold an enquiry into the allegations made  against the Managing Committee and the irregularities said to have been  committed even during the holding of the elections and to submit a report  to this Court within a month from the date on which he chooses to enter  upon the reference, which we hope will be not later than one week after  receipt of this order.  For the purpose of enquiring into the allegations, the  learned Judge may be assisted by the parties involved and their learned  Advocates who are all requested to cooperate with the learned Judge.  The  learned Judge will be paid a consolidated remuneration of Rs.30,000/- to  be deposited by the appellants with the Registrar General of this Court  within a week from date.  The learned Judge will be entitled to withdraw  the said amount towards his remuneration.\024(emphasis supplied)           (7)    Pursuant thereto, an inquiry was made and a report filed.  Respondent No.2 herein - the Managing Committee of the Society questioned the  correctness of the said report by filing another application in the said Letters Patent  Appeal.   A Division Bench of the High Court although noticed that the Letters Patent  Appeal was heard and disposed of by an order dated 18.5.2004 and,thus, the Court  had become functus officio, yet  proceeded to make certain observations which, in our  opinion, were wholly unwarranted. The said observations are as under: \023\005. the case is remitted to the competent authority i.e. Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who will not rely  on the earlier report, submitted by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies,  Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having been superseded by the  report, submitted by Mr. Justice (Retd.) Vikramaditya Prasad.  The  Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ranchi, will look into the enquiry  report and after giving opportunity to the appellants and other necessary  parties, will determine the question as to what action, if any, is required  to be taken in accordance with law, preferably within four months from  the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.  It will be open to  the appellants to point out the defect, if any, in the enquiry report,  submitted by Mr. Justice (Retd.) Vikramaditya Prasad. The Registrar,  Co-operative Societies, will apply its independent mind and will  determine as to whether he will differ with the enquiry report or will  accept the same or part thereof and what action is required to be taken  under the law.  No further order is required to be passed in the present  case.\024          (8)    Appellants before us were impleaded as interveners before the  learned Single Judge. They, by this petition for grant of special leave, have questioned  the justifiability or otherwise of the aforementioned observations of the Division Bench.         (9)     Ms. Bagchi, learned Counsel appearing for the erstwhile  Managing Committee questions the locus of the appellants to prefer this appeal relying  on the decisions of this Court in N. Swain and Another vs. B.K. Mohapatra and  Others., (1970)  3 SCC  321 and Ravi Rao Gaikwad and Others vs. Rajajinagar Youth  Social Welfare Assn. And Others, (2006) 5 SCC 62.         (10)    The interveners in this case were not only permitted to intervene  by the learned Single Judge but as is evident from the records that they were parties in  the Letters Patent Appeal also.         (11)    In N. Swain\022s case (supra), this Court was concerned with grant  of a certificate in terms of Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and in that  context it was observed that the interveners having no statutory right to prefer an  appeal such certificate could not have been granted by the High Court.         (12)    In Ravi Rao Gaikwad\022s case (supra), this Court observed that the  purpose of grant of application for intervention is to entitle the interveners  to address  arguments in support of one or the other side.         (13)    Appellants are members of the Society. They have been pursuing  their cause before the High Court. They were impleaded as parties in the Letters  Patent Appeal. Not only in the capacity of interveners but also as persons aggrieved,  they are, therefore, entitled to file petition for grant of special leave.  The preliminary  objection in regard to maintainability of the appeal raised by Ms. Bagchi is rejected.         (14)    Indisputably, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies appointed  under the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 which was adopted by the State of  Jharkhand on bifurcation of the State as per provisions of the State Organisation Act is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

a statutory authority. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies in exercise of his powers  conferred upon him in terms of Section 41 and/or Section 48 of the said Act is entitled  to pass an appropriate order. The orders passed by the Registrar, Cooperative  Societies are appealable.         (15)    Whosoever had enquired into the charges levelled against the  erstwhile members of the Managing Committee, indisputably the inquiry report is to  be placed before the Registrar so as to enable him to arrive at a decision. An order by a  statutory authority, therefore, must be passed in terms of the provisions of the Act  wherefor the inquiry report must be looked into. The report of a retired Judge of the  High Court, indisputably will carry great weight. It must be given an effective  consideration.       (16)      The State of Jharkhand in its counter affidavit stated as under: \005  Directing the Registrar Cooperative Societies to invite objections and  having the liberty of differing with the report of Mr. Justice (Retd.)  Vikramaditya Prasad has opened a pandora\022s box and at the same time  set a bad precedent as the executive wing does not override the report  submitted by a committee duly constituted by the Hon\022ble Jharkhand  High Court and moreover headed by a retired judicial authority.\024

       (17)    We are, thus, of the opinion that no observation was required to  be made in relation thereto. Suffice, it to say that it is for the Registrar, Cooperative  Societies to take a decision in the matter and for that purpose it was wholly  unnecessary for the Division Bench of the High Court to make any observation as to  how the said statutory authority should proceed in the matter. The statutory authority  is duty-bound to proceed in accordance with law and  exercise  its jurisdiction within  the four corners of the Statute.         (18)    We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Registrar, Cooperative  Societies shall now proceed to determine the issue pending before him  on the basis of  the inquiry report placed before him  and all other relevant materials, without in any  way being influenced by the observations of the High Court in its impugned judgment.         (19)    The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned observations. No  costs.