SORABJI MANCHARJI VAID Vs. REGISTRAR CO OP SOC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a Co-operative Society called Dadra and Nagar Haveli Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd. It is, in fact, a sugar factory. Its bye-law dealing with the constitution of the Board of Directors including the Chairman and Viee-Ghairman is Bye-law No. 21 (2). The material pa,rt of that bye-law reads as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the bye-laws, the first Board of Directors including the Chairman and Vice-Chairman Shall be nominated by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies,. Dadra and Nagar Haveli Administration and financial institution and the society which shall confirm the constitution as laid down in the Bye-law Np. 21 (1) and thereafter the Registrar may extend the period of such nominated Board of Directors from time to time as deemed fit. However, such extended period shall not. exceed five years after the, factory goes into production."

(2.) The Petitioners, who are also promoters of the said Co-operative Society, have alleged that a meeting of the promoters was called for 19th November,. 1981 for which the agenda circulated, which is Exhibit D, showed six items none of which related to the questions of nomination of first Board of Directors by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Respondent No. 1, issued a notification, on 23rd August 1982 nominating the first Board of Directors including the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Petitioners Nos. 7 and: 13 have been nominated as members of the Board of Directors. The total number of Directors nominated by Respondent No. 1 is 12, out of whom three are from the category of non-producers, two are from the category of producers (Adivasis) and seven are from the category of producers (Non-Adivasis). Respondents Nos. 4 to 13 are the nominated members of the Board of Directors other than the two petitioners Nos. 7 and 13. The other petitioners are the promoters of the society.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioners is two-fold. Firstly, it is contended that in spite of the fact that the question with regard to the nomination of the first Board of Directors was never discussed at the meeting of 19th November, 1981, that there was no item with regard to this on the agenda and that interpolations have been made in the agenda and the minute book to show that the question of nomination of the Board of Directors was considered at the meeting of 19th November, 1981. The second contention is that no consent of the society was obtained, as required by Bye-law 21 (2), by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and, therefore, the nomination of the Board of Directors is contrary to law.