Amrita Sinha DECISION
Amrita Sinha, J.
1. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered Cooperative Society and the petitioner No. 2 claims to be its Secretary. There are 54 members of the Society. The private respondent is one of the members of the said Society.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the issuance of memo being Nos. 2555/1(2)/1-1212/76 dated 10th June 2019 issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and 541/1(4) dated 30th July, 2019 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kolkata Metropolitan Area Housing Cell.
3. By the memo dated 10th June 2019 the Joint Registrar requested the Deputy Registrar to cause an enquiry into the affairs of the Society, in general, as per Section 100 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 (herein after 'the Act'). By the memo dated 30th July 2019 the Deputy Registrar has invoked the provision of Section 100(1) of the Act and entrusted the Cooperative Development Officer to cause an inquiry into the affairs of the Society with special emphasis on the complaint lodged by the private respondent.
4. The primary allegation of the petitioner is that according to Section 100(1) of the Act the Registrar may, at any time, of his own motion, hold by himself or by any person authorized by him an inquiry into the affairs of any cooperative society. The petitioners submit that according to the aforesaid provision the Registrar could have held an inquiry on his own motion and not on the basis of any complaint lodged by an applicant not specified in the said Section.
5. The petitioners are further aggrieved with the appointment of the inquiry officer. According to the petitioners the Joint Registrar had entrusted the Deputy Registrar to cause an inquiry into the affairs of the said Society. The Deputy Registrar could not have further delegated the inquiry upon the Cooperative Development Officer inasmuch as the same amounts to sub-delegation which is not permissible according to the aforesaid provision.
6. The petitioners submit that though according to Section 4(56) of the Act Registrar includes the Deputy Registrar and the Joint Registrar, even then, since the Joint Registrar had already entrusted the inquiry upon the Deputy Registrar accordingly the Deputy Registrar ought not to have further sub-delegated the inquiry to the Cooperative Development Officer.
7. It has been pointed out that there is a provision for raising dispute before the Registrar and the law provides for a forum for settlement of the disputes raised before the Registrar. Instead of invoking the said provision the Deputy Registrar erroneously invoked the provision under Section 100(1) of the Act for causing the inquiry.
8. The petitioners rely upon the judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Dalel Singh vs. Hony. Secretary, Cooperative Union Ltd. UP Lucknow & Ors. reported in MANU/UP/0019/1956 : AIR 1956 All 43 wherein the court held that the Registrar is given certain powers of general supervision and he has power either of his own motion or on the request of the Collector or a majority of the committee or of not less than 1/3rd of the members to hold an inquiry or direct some person authorised by him to hold inquiry in the constitution, working and financial condition of the society. The power can only be exercised in cases where the entire working of the society is defective and this power has been given to protect the interest of the shar........