LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-218

BHLCHNDR UPDHYY Vs. COOPERTIVE DEPRTMENT

Decided On March 20, 2018
Bhlchndr Updhyy Appellant
V/S
Coopertive Deprtment Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prties through their counsel.

(2.) Regrd being hd to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cses, the writ petitions were nlogously herd nd by common order, they re being disposed of by this Court. Fcts of the Writ Petition No.4317/2018 re nrrted hereunder. This Court in W.P. No.8996/2014 hs pssed the following order:-

(3.) The cse of petitioner is tht election of bord of directors of respondent No. 5 bnk which is registered coopertive bnk ws held on 7/12/2009 nd petitioner ws elected s vice-president on 14/12/2009. The first meeting of the newly elected bord of directors ws held on 14/12/09 nd tenure of bord of directors ws going to expire on 14/12/14. On 22/8/14,the bord of directors of respondent No. 5 bnk hd tken decision nd hd submitted n ppliction to respondent No. 3 through proper chnnel for ppointment of Returning Officer nd for conducting the election of the bord of directors of respondent No. 5 bnk. Therefter the voter list ws published nd respondent No. 4 hd sent the communiction to respondent No. 3 for ppointing the returning officer nd for conducting the election but neither the returning officer ws ppointed nor the election ws conducted therefore, the present petition ws filed. The respondents hve filed the ppliction for vcting of sty disclosing tht steps re being tken for conducting the election nd tht the mendment in the ct hs been mde in the light of which the bord of directors hs cesed to exist nd tht in respect of respondent No. 5 bnk nother writ petition ws filed in which directions hve lredy been issued. Lerned counsel for petitioner submits tht the mended section 7- will hve prospective ppliction nd petitioner nd existing bord of directors re entitled to continue till the fresh elections re held. He further submits tht the respondents uthorities re not holding the election of the bord of directors without ny justifible reson. HIGH COURT OF MDHY PRDESH: BENCH T INDORE s ginst this respondents No. 1 to 4 hs opposed the writ petition submitting tht in view of the mended provisions, the petitioner hs no right to continue nd tht expeditious steps re being tken for conducting the election.