GOPAL CHANDRA MAITY Vs. KANAILAL MAITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 5th September, 1996 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.O. No. 13103(W) of 1996 whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge directed that the order impugned in the writ application being dated 23-8-1996 as contained in Annexure 'F to the writ application be not given effect to.

(2.) Bereft of all unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is as follows : There exists a co-operative society known as Tamluk-Ghatal Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the said society. The said society is registered under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the said Act). Admittedly an election of the Director was held in the year 1990. However, two directors could not be elected from Mahisadal I and II Block and Sutahat I and II Block. In that view of the matter, the Registrar of the Co-operative Society in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Rule 34 of the West Bengal Co-operative Society Rules nominated the writ petitioners. However, the stay application was taken up for hearing the learned Counsel for the parties agreed that the writ application itself be heard along with appeal upon dispensing with all the requirements of the writ rules.

(3.) Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent has raised a short question in support of this writ petition. The learned Counsel submits that keeping in view the fact that the writ petitioners were appointed in terms of Rule 34 of the said Rules, the question of their nomination or the question of their being appointed for a period of one year does not arise. Keeping in view the terminology used therein, the learned Counsel contended, the offer of appointment must be read in the context of Rule 34 of the said Rules.