Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. and others 489
November, 1979 issued by the State
Government in exercise of power of U.P.
General Clauses Act, 1904 read with
power of the State Government as
referred to under Section 3(2) of the
1965 Act by which the District Assistant
Registrar has been authorised to exercise
the power under Section 95-A of the
1965 Act with regard to such branches of
the Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Bhumi Vikas
Bank Limited which are within its
jurisdiction. Section 3 of the 1965 Act is
quoted below:-
"3. Registrar. -(1) The State
Government may appoint a person to be
the Registrar of Cooperative Societies
for the State.
(2) The State Government may, for
the purpose of this Act, also appoint
other persons to assist the Registrar and
by general or special order confer on
any such person all or any of the powers
of the Registrar.
(3) Where any order has been made
under sub-section (2) conferring on any
person all or any of the powers of the
Registrar under any provision of this
Act, such order shall be deemed to
confer on him all the powers under that
provision as may be amended from time
to time."
Thus the District Assistant Registrar
is fully empowered to exercise the power
of Registrar under Section 95-A of the
1965 Act and the recovery certificate
dated 5th October, 2007 issued by the
District Assistant Registrar is fully in
consonance with the provisions of
Section 95-A of the 1965 Act and the
District Assistant Registrar for the
purpose of Section 95-A of the 1965 Act
is empowered to act as Registrar. Thus
the submission of the petitioners' counsel
that recovery proceedings initiated
against the petitioners are in breach of
the 1964 Act and the 1971 Rules is
misconceived."
8. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner in support of his submission
that when a thing is required to be done
in a statute in a particular maner, the
same has to be done in the said manner,
has placed reliance on large number of
judgements as noted above. The Full
Bench judgment of this Court in the case
of Abdul Wahid Khan (supra), while
considering the principle of statutory
interpretation, held that the words used
by Legislature to be construed in their
natural meaning when text is explicit.
There cannot be any dispute to the
principles of interpretation as laid down
by the apex Court in the said judgment.
The same principle of statutory
interpretation were reiterated by this
Court in the case of Durga Prasad
(supra). In A.R. Antulay's case (supra),
following was laid down in paragraph
22:
"Once the contention on behalf of
the appellant that investigation under
Sec. 5A is a condition precedent to the
initiation of proceedings before a special
Judge and therefore cognizance of an
offence cannot be taken except upon a
police report, does not commend to us
and has no foundation in law, it is
unnecessary to refer to the long line of
decisions commencing from Taylor v
Taylor, (1) Nazir Ahamad v. King
Emperor (2) and ending with Chettiam
Veettil Ahmad and Anr. v. Taluk Land
Board and Ors., (3) laying down hitherto
uncontroverted legal principle that