Co-operative Societies Ordinance, 1984

 

 

Co-operative Societies Ordinance, 1984

Section- 19(2) And

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972

Articles-27 and 38

 

(a) Section-19(2) of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance challenged by the petitioner who was elected for 3 consecutive terms, a member of the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society is not violative of the Articles-27 and 38 of the Bangladesh Constitution though S. 19(2) imposes restriction on a citizen rendering the petitioner uneligible for being elected as an officer of the Co-operative Society unless a period of 2 years elapsed before the expiry of his last term as a member of the said society—the petitioner was not treated unequally. [Para-5]

Md. Abdus Sattar Vs. Bangladesh 1 BLT (AD)-31                                                                                                                                                       

(b) Interpretation of the legislative intent-old is gold- “the old order changeth yielding place to new-reasonableness of restriction.

“While the proverb “old is gold” has a fatal attraction, another proverb “the old order changeth yielding place to new” is equally honoured. Which proverb to following what given situation is a legislative exercise and 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.” [Para-5]

Md. Abdus Sattar Vs. Bangladesh 1 BLT(AD)-31

Co-Operative Societies Ordinance, 1984

 

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

 

Co-operative Societies Ordinance, 1984

 

Co-operative Societies Ordinance, 1984

Section-19(2) And

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972

Articles-27
and 38

(a)
Section- 19(2) of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance challenged by the
petitioner who was elected for 3 consecutive terms, a member of the Managing
Committee of a Co-operative Society is not violative of the Articles-27 and 38
of the Bangladesh Constitution though S.l9(2) imposes restriction on a citizen
rendering the petitioner uneligible for being elected as an officer of the Co-operative
Society unless a period of 2 years elapsed before the expiry of his last term
as a member of the said society—the petitioner was not treated unequally.

Md. Abdus Sattar Vs.
Bangladesh. 1BLT (AD)-31

(b) Interpretation of the legislative intent
‘old is gold’- “the old order changeth yielding place to new-reasonableness of
restriction.

“While
the proverb “old is gold” has a fatal attraction, another proverb “the old
order changeth yielding place to new” is equally honoured. Which proverb to
following what given situation is a legislative exercise and 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. 1BLT (AD)-31

Section- 134(5)

Section
134(5) of the Ordinance provides for filing petition before the District Judge
from an order of the appellate authority. This provision has been made for the
examination of correctness of the decision of the appellate authority. The
authority or power so assigned to the District Judge as well as to the
Additional District Judge is not limited to the question of law alone, but also
authorizes to examine the correctness of the decision of the appellate
authority in the background of the materials on record and as such while
examining the correctness of the decision of the appellate authority the
District Judge or the Additional District Judge is quite competent to examine
the case of the parties in the background of the materials placed on record and
in the instant case the learned Additional District Judge on scrutiny of the
materials brought on record by the parties arrived at the finding that the deed
dated 14.3.1980 was forged and fabricated one. The power so exercised by the
learned. Additional District Judge is quite in accordance with law.

Md. Mojibul Huq
alias Shaikh Vs. Mrs. Sonaban Bibi & Ors. 14 BLT (AD)47