Principles of natural justice in society supersession proceedings did not require separate hearing of every member before enquiry notice.

A notice of enquiry under Section 34A was challenged on the basis that a prior supersession order should first have been recalled and that every society member ought to have received a separate hearing. The Court noted that the earlier supersession order had already been set aside and the matter reconsidered, and that the Government Order dated 01.03.2023 was passed after hearing the then office bearers, who included the incumbent President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer, along with some committee members. In these circumstances, the proceedings did not require individual hearing to every member of the Society. The impugned notice of enquiry was therefore set aside and the writ petition was partly allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned notice of enquiry could survive when the earlier Government Order superseding the Management Committee had already been passed after affording opportunity to the incumbent office bearers, and whether a separate hearing to each and every member of the Society was necessary.

Analysis: The petition challenged the notice of enquiry on the ground that it was issued without first recalling the supersession order. The Court noted that an earlier supersession order had already been set aside and the matter had been reconsidered thereafter. On the materials placed, the Government Order dated 01.03.2023 had been passed after hearing the then office bearers, who were also the incumbent President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer, together with some Management Committee members. The Court held that, in these circumstances, the proceedings under Section 34A did not require an opportunity to be given to every individual member of the Society. As the later Government Order itself was under challenge in pending writ petitions, the Court declined to examine its merits and confined itself to the validity of the impugned notice.

Conclusion: The impugned notice of enquiry was set aside. The writ petition was partly allowed in favour of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the affected office bearers have already been heard before issuance of the supersession order, the subsequent enquiry notice cannot be invalidated on the sole ground that each member of the Society was not separately heard.

---