BKRISHNAPPA Vs. BENGALORE CITY CO OPERATIVE BANK LTDAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order which the petitioner wants to be quashed by this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relates to his removal from the membership of the Bangalore City Co-operative Bank, Ltd., Bangalore. The petitioner became a member of the said Bank about 15 years back and in his zeal to promote the interests of the Bank questioned from time to time the propriety of the acts of the Directors in managing the affairs of the Bank and subjected them to proceedings under the Cooperative Societies Act before the Registrar and his Assistants. The remission by the Directors of portions of the debts due by one Sri Kodandaramaiah and some others was an instance of this kind. His objection to the remission was upheld by the Assistant to the Registrar as well as the Registrar and finally by the Government. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a notice stating that a special General Body Meeting would be convened at the request of certain members of the Bank to consider firstly the question of the remission and secondly removal of the petitioner from the membership of the Bank. The petitioner again filed a petition before the Assistant Registrar objecting to these. In the course of those proceedings the then Secretary, Mr. B. Rangaswamy, stated on behalf of the Bank:

(2.) The petitioner who argued the case himself with the facility and force of one accustomed to it, attacked the order firstly on the ground that it offends the rule of 'res judicata'; secondly that the application which led to it was not maintainable, thirdly that it was obtained on malicious ex parte representations and lastly that it is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. The plea of 'res judicata' rests on construction placed on the order passed by the Government negativing the resolution of the Bank for remission of any portion of Kodandaramaiah's debt as also a decision in favour of the petitioner concerning his removal. The proceedings in which the question of remission was considered were treated as separate from those about the petitioner's removal and the finding arrived at in the latter was mentioned only as a fact in the other case. As the question of removal was not in issue in the other case and referred to as being dealt with separately the rule of 'res judicata' can have no application to the order in question. The order cannot be held to be defective on the-ground that no appeal was filed under Section 62, Co-operative Societies Act, as appeal lies only when there is a point of law, as Section 59 of the Act, which is wider in scope than Section 62 enables Government to call for and examine either of its own accord or at the instance of the aggrieved party, the correctness, legality or otherwise of any order under the Act. The Government, therefore, has jurisdiction under both sections to make the order and resort to either of these in any case is a matter for its determination. As regards errors in the order, it is conceded that the number of the original suit in the civil court referred to as pending is a mistake and that as a matter of fact, there was no order of injunction in a pending case from any Court which could justify the participation of Kodandaramaiah in the meeting. The view that the matter involved is not a 'dispute' under Section 52 of the Act is, in our opinion, incorrect. The petitioner has by his diligence found a recent decision of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court printed in -- 'Madhava Rao v. Surya Rao', AIR1954 Mad 103 (FB) (A), in which the word "Dispute" touching the business of a registered society, has been discussed. Reference is made with approval in the course of the decision to the following observations of the learned Chief Justice in another case:

(3.) As regards the resolution passed by the meetings which is relied on in the order for expulsion of the petitioner, it was contended that there was breach of undertaking on the part of the Sank in allowing the resolution to be passed and that it was contrary to the assurance of Mr. Rangaswamy as Secretary before the Personal Assistant. The meeting itself was alleged to have been a packed body of persons set up only to vote for expulsion without giving any consideration to the reasonableness of it. The Directors .are said to have exercised overpowering or undue influence over the members so packed, to stifle opposition and with' the authorities to have the resolution approved. The statement of parties on the strength of which the application of the petitioner in Dispute Case No. 1 of 52-53 was dismissed do suggest that the question of removal would not be pressed and by reason of this the petitioner is prejudiced as he had neither the benefit of a decision of the matter nor of adherence to it. On behalf of the Bank Sri Venkataswamy represented that the Directors personally voted against expulsion and that it was not within their power- to avoid the meeting being held or the resolution being passed. The society like any corporate body can function through its elected or appointed agents and the representations made by a Secretary in a formal proceeding cannot be explained away as his own not affecting the society, as he has locus standi in such a proceeding as a representative of the Bank and not as an ordinary person to state anything which may be the basis of a decision.