2003 (2) TMI 545 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether Sections 28(1), 28(3-b), and 33-A of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, as amended by Act 28 of 1991, have come into operation.
2. The validity of the petitioner's promotion to the post of Accountant.
3. The legality of the order reverting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Accountant.
4. The appropriateness of taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act for alleged non-compliance with the court's direction.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Sections 28(1), 28(3-b), and 33-A of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, as amended by Act 28 of 1991, have come into operation:

The main question was whether the amended provisions of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, specifically Sections 28(1), 28(3-b), and 33-A, had been brought into force. The court observed that no notification, as required under Section 1(2) of Act 28 of 1991, had been issued to bring these amended sections into effect. Despite arguments suggesting that certain government orders implied the provisions were in force, the court concluded that without the requisite notification, the provisions had not been legally activated. Therefore, the court answered the question in the negative, stating that the amended provisions had not come into force.

2. The validity of the petitioner's promotion to the post of Accountant:

The petitioner, who did not possess a Degree in Commerce or Arts, was promoted to the post of Accountant by the Managing Committee of the Society. Under the unamended Section 33-A, the Registrar had the authority to classify societies, fix the number and designation of employees, and regulate their qualifications. The amended Section 33-A, which was not in force, would have allowed the Committee to determine these factors. Since the petitioner did not meet the qualifications prescribed by the unamended provisions, his promotion could not be approved by the Registrar. The court found that the promotion was invalid as it was based on a statutory provision that had not been brought into force.

3. The legality of the order reverting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Accountant:

The petitioner was reverted to the post of Assistant Accountant because he did not possess the necessary qualifications for the post of Accountant. The court upheld the legality of this reversion, noting that the Managing Committee did not have the authority to promote the petitioner under the unamended provisions. The communication informing the petitioner of his reversion was deemed fully legal and justified.

4. The appropriateness of taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act for alleged non-compliance with the court's direction:

The court recognized that a direction issued by it must be obeyed, and non-compliance could constitute "Civil contempt" under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, the court also noted that under Section 13 of the Act, it must be satisfied that the contempt substantially interferes with the due course of justice. In this case, while there was disobedience, the court found it inexpedient to proceed with contempt action. The court decided to drop the contempt proceedings, considering the overall circumstances and the fact that the original decision was based on a statutory provision that had not come into force.

Conclusion:

The court reviewed and reopened the writ petition, ultimately dismissing both the original petitions. The decision highlighted the necessity of proper notification for statutory provisions to come into force and clarified the limits of the Managing Committee's powers under the unamended Act. The court also emphasized the discretionary nature of contempt proceedings, opting not to impose punishment in this instance.