RONGOLI PADMANABHASWAMY Vs. B V SANJEEVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rongali Padmanabhaswamy has filed this petition praying for issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order and quash resolution No. 1(1) dated 18th March, 1963, of the Board of Directors of the Vijayanagaram Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vijayanagaram. In the writ petition, originally he impleaded ten respondents who constituted the Board of Directors of the Cooperative Bank. Subsequently, he filde E.M.P.No. 1926 of 1964 for impleading the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the latter was added as respondent No. 11 by an order of this Court, dated 2nd March, 1964.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows :- The Co-operavie Bank has a Board of Directors which is to consist of 12 members including the President. Four of the Directors, namely, one-third of the total number, were due to retire by 31st March, 1963. One of them was the petitioner who had been last elected on 31st March, 1960 and been functioning ever since. He had also been a director for two earlier terms. The President himself was Election Officer (Sri B. V. Sanjeeva Rao) and he duly published notification for electing four directors to fill up the four vacancies, fixing 12th March, 1963, for receiving nominations and 18th March, 1963, for scrutiny. There were nine nominations. But one of the nine nominees withdrew. On scrutiny, the petitioner's nomination was found to be in order. But, there were objections from four members to the nomination on the ground that he was disqualified under section 27 (1) (e) of the Rules framed under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act-Madras Act VI of 1932-on the alleged ground that the petitioner's daughter was married to one Boda Sanghi Audinarayana, a peon, employed in the Bank. In his writ petition, the petitioner says that he denied the alleged relationship and that the marriage took place in about 1945 after which petitioner has been elected twice to the directorate without any objection. The Board of Directors proceeded to decide on the objection by majority votes. Seven of the directors, including the President, voted in favour of the objection being upheld while three voted against the objection being upheld. The petitioner was present but did not partake in the proceedings relating to his nomination. The Board passed a resolution No. I (1) on that day as follows :-

(3.) It is this resolution with which the petitioner feels aggrieved and which he wants to be quashed by issue of a writ. The relevant contentions of the petitioner in his petition are as follows. The wife of Audinaryana is petitioner's daughter but she was an orphan whom the petitioner helped to get married to Audinarayana. The petitioner not only denied the alleged relationship but pointed out that the Board of Directors had no jurisdic tion to decide the question but must refer the same to the Registrar for his decision. The President of the Board of Directors and his staunch supporters are anxious to pack the directorate with their yes-men. Under bye-law 3 of Appendix-B to the Bye-laws framed by the society, the directors can dispose of only objections other than those contemplated by rule 27 (1) (e). Bye-law 3 is void and inoperative to the extent to which it violates rule 27 (i) () and it cannot confer jurisdiction on the Board contrary to rule 27 (I) (e).