DUKH HARAN VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was Chairman of the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Sultanpur. This writ petition was initially filed challenging the notice for no-confidence motion meeting but thereafter the meeting was held and no-confidence motion was passed by 10 votes against the petitioner and four votes in his favour. One member did not go. There are a total of 15 members of the Board of Directors. Thus, two third of the members voted against the petitioner as required by Rule 460 of U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968. Hence we hold that the resolution for no-confidence was validly passed against the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice for calling the meeting of no-confidence was not valid. Be that as it may, since admittedly the resolution was passed by 2/3rd of the total members of the Board of Directors of the Bank the resolution was valid.

(3.) It must be remembered that writ is discretionary remedy vide Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (3) SCCD 1078 ; JT 2003 (6) SC 20. In a writ petition the petitioner has not only to show violation of law, he must also show that equity is in his favour. Thus, to obtain a writ the petitioner must satisfy the Court about both law and equity. If the petitioner has only satisfied the Court that the law has been violated but equity is not in his favour the Court shall not issue a writ.