Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ravindra Pal Singh v. Housing Commissioner/Registrar,U.P.Avas Evam V. P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 70816 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6065 (21 November 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard Sri Arun Kumar for the petitioner and Sri H. R. Misra for the respondents.

The petitioner Sri Ravindra Pal Singh claims himself to be appointed as the Honorary Secretary of the 509 Army Base Workshop Workers Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Agra vide order dated 1.7.2005 passed by the Administrator. It is a primary Urban Housing Society registered under the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. There is clear recitation in the order of appointment that the petitioner is neither entitled to any wages nor to any honorarium. By order dated 24.10.2005 the petitioner was removed from the office of the Honorary Secretary of the aforesaid Society on the ground that his services were no longer required and as such he was relieved from his office with immediate effect. The order dated 24.10.2005 is as under: -


509 Army Base Workshop Workers Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Agra ke sachiv pad par karyarat Sri Ravindra Pal Singh ki sewaon ki awashyakta Samiti ko nahin hai.

Atah Sri Singh ko Samiti ke sachiv pad se mukta kiya jata hai.

Yah Adesh tatkal se prabhawi hoga.

Dinank: 24.10.2005                         Sd/- Illegible

                                                    (Jagdish Prasad)

                Sadasya Prashasak  Committee, Uprokta Samiti

                                Evam Sahkari Awas Adhikari, Agra"

      Note: (The original letter is in Devnagri script which is given hereinabove in Roman script due to technical reason).


Sri H.R.Misra has put in appearance on behalf of Sri Yogesh Kumar who is newly appointed Secretary of the Society. He has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable.  

The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed his appointment letter dated 24.10.2005 and has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 23 and the affidavit filed in the petition which has been sworn on 8.11.2005. He submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party and that the petition is not maintainable in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11607 Of 1993, Janhagir Raj William Singh Vs Asha Pusp Vihar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. & another, decided on 17.9.1993 which has also been considered in a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 17156 Of 2004, O.P.Verma Vs State of U.P. & Others. In the case of Janhagir Raj William Singh (Supra) it has been held:-

"......a person appointed in an honorary capacity has no right to file a writ petition. He has no grievance or cause of action. It is only a person who is getting salary who can have a grievance if his services are terminated. An honorary employee cannot have any grievance because the termination order does not effect him in any manner....."

Sri H.R.Misra has further relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 16188 Of 2002 (Ram Nath Pandey Vs Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Basti & Others), wherein it has been held that any order passed by an officer of a Co-operative Society can be challenged before the Registrar of the Society under Section 128 of the Co-operative Societies Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered in Administrator, Konch Sahakari Kraya Vikraya Samiti Ltd. Vs Sarnam Singh & Others, RD 2000 (91) 162, in support of his contention that a writ petition filed by a Secretary of a Co-operative Society who is removed from service is maintainable. He contends that a perusal of the judgment clearly shows that the removal of service of the petitioner under Section 38 of the Societies Act is statutory in nature and as such the order is amenable to writ jurisdiction. He also submits that the proceedings under Section 31 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 have also not been followed and as such the writ petition is amenable at the behest of the petitioner who is Secretary of the Society.


In the case of Administrator, Konch Sahakari Kraya Vikraya Samiti Ltd. (Supra) respondent no. 1 Sarnam Singh was appointed as a Secretary. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., District Jalaun. After enquiry by the Additional District Co-operative Officer his services had been terminated. The order of removal was challenged by Sarnam Singh before the High Court wherein an objection was taken by the Society in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that it did not lie against the Co-operative Society. After referring to the relevant provisions of the Act, the High Court rejected the objection and the order of removal from service was quashed but it was left open to the Co-operative Society to take fresh action and complete the inquiry proceedings against the Secretary. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court the Society preferred Civil Appeal No. 867 Of 1993 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 2 observed: -

"In the present case, it is not necessary for us to examine the larger question of maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against every action of the Society. The decision in the present case is confined only to the maintainability of the writ petition by a Secretary of the Co-operative Society who has been removed from service in the manner provided in the statute."

After referring to Section 31 and Section 38 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act which provides for removal of an officer of a Co-operative Society the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court that the writ petition was maintainable in that case did not call for any interference.

It may be noted that in the aforesaid case it is not clear from the perusal of the aforesaid case that whether the Society was a primary society or an apex society and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in the facts and circumstances of that case. In the instant case there is a dispute that whether the Society was a primary Society or an apex society and no foundation has been laid down in the writ petition how the Society against which relief is being sought is a State.

The petitioner has also referred to the case of A. Umarani Vs Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Others, (2004) 7 S.C.C. 112 in support of his contention that the action of the Co-operative Society is violative of statutory provisions and that the writ petition is maintainable.

An officer of the Co-operative Society can be removed under Section 38 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The Registrar may call upon the Society to remove such officer from the office held by him within a specified period.

From the record it appears that the elections of the Society were not being held, as such an Administrator had been appointed. In order to see that the Society functions properly the petitioner had been given ad hoc appointment. It further appears from Annexure 4 that the members wanted early election but the petition was not a member of the Society and he was not holding the elections whereas Sri Yogesh Kumar who has been appointed as the new Secretary is a member of the Society and he wants election of the Society.

In my opinion the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition in view of the judgment rendered in Jahangir Raj William Singh (Supra). The petition is also liable to fail for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the alleged Ministers against whom allegations have been made in para 23 of the writ petition have not been impleaded as respondents by name. The petitioner being an honorary Secretary had no legal right to hold the office. The appointment of the petitioner as an honorary Secretary was an ad hoc appointment which appears to be against the norms of the Society as he was not a member of the Society, hence he has no right to hold office. In the circumstances Section 38 would not provide an umbrella to his removal from service.

It may be noted that the petitioner claims himself to be the Secretary of a primary Co-operative Society. No foundation has been laid down as to how the Society is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. As already held above there is no violation of Sections 31 and 38 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the Division Bench decision rendered in W. P. Nos. 16188 Of 2002, 11607 Of 1993 and 17156 Of 2004 and the cases cited by the petitioner are not applicable for the reasons given above.  

No case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated: 21.11.2005



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.