LAWS(DLH)-1991-11-51

SURESH CHAND JAIN Vs. LT GOVERNOR

Decided On November 14, 1991
SURESH CHAND JAIN Appellant
V/S
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed seeking writ of mandamus directing the second respondent. Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Returning Officer to conduct election of the Board of Directors of Jai Lakshmi Coop. Bank Ltd. as per law and a further direction to him to accept the nomination papers of petitioners 1 and 2 for the posts of Chairman and Director of the Bank. Yet another direction sought is that nomination papers filed by respondents 3 to 5 for the posts of Directors be rejected.

(2.) The bank is a Society registered under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1971 (the 'Act') and for the purpose of election and nomination of its Board of Directors is governed by S. 31 of the Act. This Board is a Committee as defined in S. 2 (b) of the Act. The Committee has been defined in S. 2 (b) of the Act meaning the governing body of a coop. society, by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the society is entrusted. The Board comprises of 11 members. If reference is made to Bye-law 22 of the bye-laws of the Society, all the Directors shall be elected in the general meeting. Out of these 11 Directors, one is to be elected as Chairman, the other Vice-Chairman, the third Secretary and the fourth as Treasurer. There is some controversy if the Secretary and Treasurer are to be elected by the general body or if they are to be elected by the Board itself.

(3.) Petitioner 1 filed his nomination paper for the post of Chairman and petitioner 2 for the post of Director. The third petitioner is a member of the Society. He, however, did not file his nomination for any post. The first respondent is Lt. Governor of Delhi, the second respondent is the Returning Officer and also working as Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and respondents 3, 4 and 5 are the members of the Society, whose nomination to the post of Director is being challenged. Respondent No. 6 was added by an order of this Court at a subsequent stage and he is also a member of the Society. The nomination paper of this respondent was, however, accepted for the post of Chairman.