ANIL KUMAR DHADWAIWALE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and the Joint Registrar. The order of the Board of Revenue Annexure-G has been passed on 26th April, 1989. The parties to that order were the Maharashtra Brahman Sahakari Bank Ltd., Indore and Vasant son of Dattatraya Mooskar, Nandlalpura, Indore.

(2.) It is necessary to state the facts of the case in brief. The last election of the Maharashtra Brahman Sahakari Bank Ltd , Indore (hereinafter called the Bank) took place on 2-2-1986 in which the present petitioner and some other members were elected. On 30-4-87, six executive members sent their resignation from the Executive Committee whereupon the remaining members co-opted six other members in that vacany caused by the resignation, Thereafter, on 8-6-87 The Executive Committee of the Bank was served with an order passed under Section 53 (13) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter called the Act) superseding the Executive Committee and appointing an Administrator. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition M. P. No. 631 of 1987 which was not pressed because the order of supersession was withdrawn. Thereafter, a fresh order was passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies superseding the Executive Committee against which the petitioner filed writ petition M. P. No. 1028 of 1987 and a stay order was obtained staying the operation of the order of supersession. This petition was ultimately dismissed by this Court on 28-4-1989. Thus, from the date of the stay order from this Court till the final disposal of the petition, the Executive Committee of the Bank continued to function by virtue of the stay order. In the aforesaid period, the respondent Vasant Dattatraya was given show cause notice by the Executive Committee and removed from membership of the Bank on 31-5-87. According to the petitioner that order was validly passed. However, respondent Vasant filed an appeal under Section 64 of the Act before the Deputy Registrar in which an ex parte stay was obtained against the show cause notice which was later on vacated. Against the vacation of stay he filed appeal to the Joint Registrar who allowed the appeal and when the Bank appealed before the Board of Revenue, the appeal of the Bank was rejected. The petitioner was undisputedly not a party to the aforesaid proceedings. According to him due to supersession the Bank is not interested in filing a writ petition. However, since the petitioner was a party to the decision taken against Vasant and some any other actions taken by the Bank, it is necessary that this Court may quash order of the Board of Revenue and hold that under Section 51 of the Act, the acts of the Bank are validated.

(3.) The petition has been opposed by the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Revenue Board. Therefore, he has no locus standi to present this petition and the order passed does not in any way adversely affect the interest of the petitioner Therefore, he is not an aggrieved person. It has also been stated that the legality of the co-option has already been held illegal by this Court in M. P. No. 1028 of 1987. Therefore, the Bank has already been superseded, and new elections are held as per the orders of the Hon'ble Court. According to the respondent No. 5, the petitioner has committed many illegalities during the tenure of his office and he wants all those actions validated by filing this petition, and as such, in a way he is trying to seek an anticipatory bail pertaining to the illegalities committed by him