SHRAVAN KUMAR DEEPAVARE Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 14.2.2012, Annexure P/11, passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 31/2011 by the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Tribunal. Bhopal (In short, "the Tribunal") whereby in a contempt application it has held that earlier Board of Directors was not reinstated and permitted respondent Nos. 2 to 10 to function as new Board of Directors.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 11 Vidyut Sharmik Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited is a Co-operative Society. On 26.8.2007 the petitioner was elected as member of the Board of Directors of the Society. Under sub-section (7-A) (I) of section 49 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short, "the Act") the term of Board of Directors is of five years from the date on which first meeting of the Board of Directors is held. Respondent No. 1 Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, however by exercising powers under section 53(I) vide dated 15.2.2010 superseded the functioning of the Board of Directors for a period of two years and appointed one Mr. P.S. Thakur to manage the affairs of the Society. The petitioner chellenged the order of supersession in Appeal No. 78(1) 11/2010 before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, but it was dismissed vide order dated 29.1.2011. Undeterred, the petitioner filed Second Appeal No. 18/2011 before the Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated 30.6.2011 and the order dated 15.2.2010 of supersession was set aside.

(3.) AS already mentioned above, sub-section (7-1 )(I) of section 49 of the Act provides that the term of Board of Directors shall be five years. The proviso to this sub-section clearly mandates that where a Board of Directors superseded is reinstated, as a result of any order of any Court or Authority, the period during which the Board of Directors remained under supersession shall be excluded in computing the period of five year term. Thus, setting aside of the supersession order dated 15.2.2010 by the Tribunal resulted in the restoration of the position of petitioner and other members of the Board of Directors as it stood on the date when the order of supersession was passed. But respondent Nos. 2 to 10 refused to step down gracefully. Instead, they started creating hurdles in the reinstatement of the earlier Board of Directors. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation Annexure P5 to the Deputy Registrar who. by order dated 15.9.2011, held that after passing of the order dated 30.6.2011 by the Tribunal the earlier Board of Directors stood reinstated. But again despite this order, respondent Nos. 2 to 10 continued to defy the mandate of law. Not only this, they even filed a contempt petition before the Tribunal under section 10 read with section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act against the petitioner. The Tribunal also surprisingly by the impugned order dated 14.2.2012 had held that the earlier Board of Directors did not come into existence despite setting aside of the order of its supersession.