Co–operative Societies Ordinance, 1984

 

Co–operative
Societies Ordinance, 1984

[I of 1985]

 

Section 2–

When report
of enquiry forms the basis of allegations against the Managing Committee a copy
of the Report is an indispensable tool in its hands in giving reply to the show
cause notice.

Borhanuzzaman
vs Ataur Rahman Chowdhury 46 DLR (AD) 94.

 

Section 22(4)–

Government
may dissolve any co–operative society but they cannot direct a person to act as
Chairman of a society during an enquiry.

Karika vs
Secretary, LGRD 45 DLR 324.

 

Section 26–

Enquiry
under section 26–No manner laid down–Govemment’s discretion to prevail.

In the
present case section 26 of the Ordinance does not lay down any manner. of
causing an enquiry. The enquiry has been left to the discretion of the
Government “as it may deem fit.”

Saleh Ahmed
Khan vs Additional Secretary, Ministry of Local Government 41 DLR 210.

 

Section 26–

Exercise of
powers by the Additional Secretary–in–Charge is contingent upon his being
authorised by the Rules of Business or by the President’s direction.

We are in
respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench (40
DLR 353) and we also similarly hold that in the present case the Additional
Secretary–in–Charge can exercise the powers of the Government under section 26
of the Ordinance only if he is so authorised in the Rules of Business or only
ifhe is so directed by the President.

Saleh Ahmed
Khan vs Additional Secretary, Ministry of Local Government 41 DLR 210.

 

Section 26–

Impugned
show cause notice or order of disqualification–No power has been vested in the
Additional Secretary–in–Charge under section 26 of the Ordinance (1 of 1985) as
such.

We have no
hesitation in saying that no power has been vested in the Additional Secretary–in­–Charge
under section 26 of the Ordinance and he himself had no power to issue either
the show cause notice or the impugned order of disqualification. The entire
proceeding was without jurisdiction.

Saleh Ahmed
Khan vs Additional Secretary, Ministry of Local Government 41 DLR 210.

 

Section 26 –

Removal of
delinquent member from the membership of the Managing Committee is the
substantive punishment. Disqualification does not follow if he is not so
removed.

It appears
to us that the Government after finding the reply to the show cause notice
unsatisfactory has first of all to remove the delinquent member from the
membership of the Managing Committee. That is his substantive punishment. It is
only upon the imposition of such punishment that he ceases to be a member of
the Managing Committee and also suffers the aforesaid disqualification. But if
there is no order removing him from the membership of the Managing Committee
then the disqualification does not follow.

Saleh Ahmed
Khan vs Additional Secretary, Ministry of Local Government 41 DLR 210.

 

Section 86–

This section
does not in any way confer any power upon the Registrar to decide any matter
relating to election.

Syed
Rahmatun Rub lrtiza Ahsan vs Bangladesh 46 DLR 294.

 

Sections 86 & 87–

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. In the
absence of any application by any party to the arbitration for the dispute
being withdrawn, the withdrawal of the dispute on the direction from the
concerned ministry is illegal.

Abdul Malek
vs District Co–operative Officer, Cox’s Bazar and others 50 DLR 426.

 

Sections 86, 89–

An
arbitrator appointed under the provision of the Co–operative Societies Ordinance,
and Rules has no express power to grant any order of stay or injunction. Such
arbitrator has no inherent, implied, incidental or consequential power to pass
order of stay during pendency of an arbitration case before him.

Giasuddin
(Md) vs Secretary–in–charge, Eastern Co–operative Jute Society Limited
and–others 50 DLR 15.

 

Sections 86, 89 & 133–

The dispute
in the case is one between the members of the society in respect of the holding
of a meeting and or co­option of some members in the managing committee. All
this matter concerns the internal affairs of the co–operative society. The
present dispute fulfils both the requirements of a dispute as contemplated by
section 86 of the Ordinance. The dispute thus falls within the mischief of
section 133 which has barred the jurisdiction of a civil Court to entertain any
suit in respect of such a dispute.

Chittagong
Urban Co–operative Society Limited and others vs Subash Chandra Lala, Advocate
and others 47 DLR 261.