Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984

Supreme Court e@Journal

www.PLRonline.in

Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984) - Powers of the revisional authorities are very limited - The order can only be set aside if it is perverse or illegal. (176) P.L.R.
Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984) - Society decided to decadre some categories of employees likes Salesman, Peon and drivers etc. and place them in the cadre of the stores - Undisputedly no objections were sought from the private respondents at that stage and the exercise was completed after getting approval from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies - The private respondents were consequently encadred with the District Co-operative Consumer Store of Haryana - Has to be held that the private respondents could not be treated to be the employees of the District Cooperative Consumer store without having sought their consent. (179) P.L.R.
Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984) S. 28 - Respondent-Director of the Managing Committee - That in case the elections are not held before the expiry of the committee, the elected members of the outgoing committee shall be debarred from contesting the elections of the committee of any co-operative society for a period of five years from the date of the expiry of the term of the outgoing committee - Vide order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rohtak was debarred - Order was stayed in appeal by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, though no appeal was maintainable before him against the order of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies - Order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, vide which operation of the order was stayed is held to be illegal, null and void - Election of the respondent set aside - Since the election is to be conducted again, therefore, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, is directed to start the process immediately. (180) P.L.R.
Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984) S. 28-B - Constitution of India, Article 243ZK - Specifically provides that the election of a board shall be conducted before the expiry of the term of the board so as to ensure that the newly elected members of the board assume office immediately on the expiry of the term of the office of members of the outgoing board - In case the elections are not held before the expiry of term of the committee, the elected members of the outgoing committee shall be debarred from contesting the elections of the committee of any co-operative society for a period of five years from the date of the expiry of the term of the outgoing board Committee. (183) P.L.R.
Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984) S. 28(4) (as amended) - Haryana Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2013 ( of 2013) - Amended provisions of Section 28(4) of the 1984 Act provides that the committee is to hold office for a period of five years from the date of election and the term of office bearers shall be coterminous with the term of the Committee - Quite evident that Bye-law 16.3 which provides that elected members of the Board shall hold office for a period of three years and 1/3rd members shall retire by rotation every year being in conflict with Section 28(4) of the 1984 Act (as amended) cannot be said to be valid w.e.f. 10.05 2013. (175) P.L.R.
Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984) S. 29 - In case of subscription of share capital of less than Rs. 1 lakh, the ARCS, being the nominee, cannot become the part of the managing committee as it would run contrary to Section 29 of the Act and there is no dispute that in case a conflict between the provisions of the Act and the Bye-laws, the provisions of the Act would prevail - Panipat District Co-operative Labour and Construction Federation Ltd., Bye-law 26. (174) P.L.R.
Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984) S. 115 - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Set aside by the High Court - Made a representation for reinstatement - Which was rejected - Now at this stage, to ask the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision after the lapse of period of five years before approaching this Court, would not be appropriate, inasmuch as, this Court has inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide the case when there is flagrant error in the procedure of law - Thus, the writ petition is maintainable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case without first exhausting the remedy under Section 115 of the Act. (176) P.L.R.