IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 10559 of 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------
KHEDA DISTRICT HANDLOOM & INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE ASSO.
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. Special Civil Application No. 10559 of 2002
MR BS PATEL for Petitioner No. 1-2
MRS RANJAN B PATEL for Petitioner No. 1-2
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, AGP, for Respondent No. 1-2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent No. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
Date of Order: 25/11/2002
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner-Cooperative Society and its
Chairman have filed this petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution for challenging show cause notice dated
8-10-2002 (Annexure A) issued by the Joint Commissioner
(Textile), Cottage and Village Industries, Gujarat State
under Section 81 (1) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) calling
upon the petitioner-Society to show cause why the
Managing Committee of the petitioner-Society should not
be superseded in view of the persistent defaults
mentioned in the notice. The petitioners have also
prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct the
respondent-authorities to release the grant already
sanctioned in favour of the petitioner-Society vide order
dated 26-3-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Cottage and
Village Industries.
2.Mr BS Patel learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that earlier similar show cause notice
dated 8-4-2002 came to be issued by the Joint
Commissioner and this Court passed order dated 3-7-2002
in Special Civil Application No.4193 of 2002 directing
the authorities to consider the petitioners’ reply and to
decide the matter. However, instead of deciding the
matter, respondent No.1 has issued another show cause
notice dated 8-10-2002 for the same alleged defaults.
The contention regarding jurisdiction of respondent No.1
to issue the show cause notice is also raised. So also
the contention is raised that the present committee
cannot be superseded for the defaults of the previous
committee.
3.Ms Manisha Lavkumar, learned AGP appearing for
the respondent-authorities has submitted that the
impugned show cause notice dated 8-10-2002 has five
grounds out of which only three grounds were subject
matter of the previous show cause notice dated 8-4-2002.
Thereafter, additional material was available with the
authorities and, therefore, it is specifically mentioned
in the impugned notice dated 8-10-2002 that pursuant to
the audit notes in the recent audit, the Committee is
also required to be heard in respect of other matters and
also representations are received from the Gujarat State
Cooperative Societies Employees Union, Petlad and Shri
Babubhai Becharbhai Patel. It is, therefore, submitted
that no interference of this Court is called for at this
stage.
As regards the other contentions, it is submitted
that similar other contentions were urged in the previous
petition still this Court required the petitioners to
appear before the authority issuing the show cause notice
and to make their submissions there and that, therefore,
there is no reason to take a different view in the
present matter.
4.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
it is clear that although there are some common grounds
in the notices dated 8-4-2002 and 8-10-2002, there are
also additional grounds in the impugned notice dated
8-10-2002. So also the question of jurisdiction and the
liability of the present committee for the defaults of
the previous committee, all these contentions can be
raised before the Commissioner/ Joint Commissioner of
Cottage and Village Industries. The present petition is,
therefore, disposed of in terms of the order dated
3-7-2002.
5.Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in terms
of the following directions:-
(i) If the petitioners file reply to the show cause
notice within one month from today, the authority
shall consider the same and take appropriate
decision in accordance with law after extending
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
(ii) While taking decision in pursuance of the show
cause notice, the authority shall deal with all
the submissions raised before it by a reasoned
order including the contention regarding
jurisdiction. The authority shall take the
decision in the matter as early as possible and
not later than three months after the receipt of
the reply to the show cause notice.
(iii) If the said decision is adverse, then the
petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the
same by way of appropriate proceedings before an
appropriate forum. If the said decision is
adverse to the petitioner, then the same shall
not be implemented for a period of two weeks from
the date of communication thereof to the
petitioner.
As regards the grievance about non-release of
grant sanctioned by the order dated 26-3-2002, it will be
open to the petitioner to make a grievance about the same
by a separate representation to the authority which has
issued the show cause notice and the authority shall look
into the same and take appropriate decision within one
month from the date of receipt of the application/
representation.
6.With these observations and directions, this
petition is disposed of at this stage without going into
the merits of the case. Notice is discharged. Interim
relief, if any, granted stands vacated subject to the
aforesaid directions.
Direct service is permitted.
(M.S. Shah,J)
zgs/-