Co-Operative
Societies Ordinance, 1984
(Ordinance
No. 1 Of 1985)
Sections—18,
22(1) and 23(1)
Co-operative
Societies Rules, 1987
Rules 16 to
25, 38 and 57
The
power of the Government to extend the period under the proviso to section 23(1)
of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance 1984 does not restrict or qualify the
provision of section 23(1) as to holding of election to constitute a regular
Managing Committee.
Co-operative
society is governed by the duty elected Managing Committee under the
law—appointed Managing Committee is no substitute for a regular Managing
Committee—it is merely a stop-gap arrangement.
Muhammad
Zakir Hussain v. Bangladesh and others, 21 BLD (HCD) 568.
Section—19(2)
It
cannot be said that barring a thrice- elected member of the Managing Committee
to stand for election again till the lapse of 2 years since his last term
expired, is an unreasonable restriction.
Md. Abdus
Sattar Vs. Bangladesh and others, 13 BLD(AD)103
Section—86
There
is nothing in section 86 of the Ordinance to indicate that a past officer of a
cooperative society cannot raise a dispute as regards his dismissal from
service or as to any matter connected with his service, In that view of the
matter, the dispute case filed by a past officer of the Insurance Company
against his dismissal cannot be said to have been entertained by the Registrar
without any lawful authority. A dispute, even if it relates to or touches a
departmental disciplinary proceeding of a co-operative society, can be
entertained by the Registrar for arbitration.
Mr. Md.
Giasuddin Vs. Bangladesh, 17 BLD (HCD) 538.
Sections—86,
87, 134(3)
Limitation
Act, 1908, Section—5
The
prescribed period of limitation for filing appeal from an order passed under
section 86 and 87 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance, 1984 is one month
from the date of knowledge of the decisions. Section 134(3) provides that
section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be made applicable to an appeal filed
under Section 134(1). There is no reason to hold that because the petitioner
could not file the appeal within prescribed period of limitation within 30 days
due to devastating cyclone the petition ought to have been accepted by the
learned District Judge on condonation of delay and the learned District Judge
dis. missed the case illegally holding that the appeal before the appellate
authority was time barred. When the Ordinance, a special enactment, excludes
the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay to
an appeal it cannot be hold that the learned District Judge failed to exercise
his jurisdiction vested under section 134(5) of the Ordinance in not condoning
delay in filing the appeal. Where a special enactment expressly provides that
for filing an appeal beyond period prescribed provision of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act shall not be made applicable the appellate authority before whom
the appeal lies has no power to condone delay by applying provision of section
5 of the Limitation Act for accepting the appeal.
Afazuddin
and others Vs. District Judge, Cox’s Bazar and others, 19 BLD(HCD)340.
Sections—86
and 87
Co-operative
Societies Rules, 1987, Rules—133, 134 and 135
Any
dispute touching the business or affairs of a co-operative society is to be
resolved in a manner as laid down in the provisions of the Ordinance and the
Rules framed thereunder. In the absence of any application by any party to the
arbitration for the dispute being withdrawn, the withdrawal of the dispute by
the impugned memo on the direction from the concerned ministry is illegal and
not sustainable in law.
Abdul Malek
Vs. District Co-operative Officer, Cox’s Bazar and others, 18 BLD (HCD) 277
Section—134
and the Third Schedule
Section
134 and the Third Schedule to the Ordinance do not provide .for any appeal
against an order of the District Co-Operative Officer under Sections 18 (3) and
18 (4) of the Ordinance. In such state of affairs, it is procedurally absurd to
ask the Appellant to go to a higher appellate forum to obtain a verdict on the
jurisdictional error of the first appellate authority.
Nani Gopal
Barman Vs. Bangladesh and Others, 14 BLD (AD) 52.
Section—134(5)
The
District Judge has been empowered to entertain and hear an application at the
instance of an aggrieved person against the decision of the appellate
authority. The District Judge has thus been vested, with the power to revise
the decision of the appellate authority on examination of the records of the
proceedings of the dispute case and the appeal case if he finds that the
appellate authority acted illegally or with material irregularity in deciding
the appeal, causing miscarriage of justice. Under Section 134(5) there is
hardly any scope for examination of witnesses or for production of fresh
documents before the District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge
acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction
in setting aside the order of the appellate authority on fresh evidence adduced
before him instead of deciding the case on the basis of materials already
placed before the appellate authority.
Producers
Milk Co-operative Union Ltd. Vs Md. La! Miah & ors, 17 BLD (HCD) 189.
Section—134(5)
Under
Section 134(5) of the Ordinance the District Judge has been vested with the
power to review the decision of the appellate authority. He is to see after
examination of the records of the dispute case and appeal case whether the
appellate authority acted illegally or with material irregularity in deciding
the appeal causing miscarriage of justice. In a proceeding of this nature there
is hardly any scope for examination of witnesses or production of documents
afresh before him.
Md. Lal Mia
Vs. Bangladesh Milk Producer’s Co-operative Union Ltd., 17 BLD (AD) 293
