ASHOK KUMAR NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a share-holder of the Urban Co-operative Bank. Cuttack has filed this wilt petition praying that the election of opposite party No. 5 as Director and Vice-President of the said Bank to be declared as void, ab initio and consequent) quash her election to the office of the Director and Vice-President of~the Management Committee of the Bank.

(2.) The Urban Co-operative Bank, Cuttack, hereinafter called the 'Bank', was created in the year 1981 with the principal objective of providing credit and banking facilities to its members and share-holders. The petitioner is a share-holder and member of the Bank. The Bank is governed by the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brevity. It is pleaded by the petitioner that opposite party No. 5 has applied for membership of the Bank on 7.1.2010. Pursuant to her application, she was on very next day i.e., on 8.1.2010 nominated by opposite party No. 2 to be member of the Bank in exercise of the power under section 28 (2) (g) (ii) of the Act. Thereafter, said opposite party participated in the meeting of the Board bereft of any approved membership. Her membership was approved by the Committee On 11.2.2010. It is further alleged that in the meantime, opposite party No. 5 was a participant in Board meetings and signatory to the decisions taken. On 11.2.2010, the Board meeting approved the membership of opposite party No. 5, attendance and minutes of the Board meeting would indicate that the opposite party was a member of the said Board and a party to the decision of approval of her own membership. Such action is challenged to be vulnerable and impermissible and, therefore, such approval is vitiated.

(3.) The petitioner further pleads that the nomination of membership dated 8.1.2010 by the opposite party No. 2 in exercise of powers under section 28 (2) (g) (ll) of the Act was challenged before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 14545 of 2009. This Court disposed of the writ application on 23.7.2010 observing why the Court should not direct for election from amongst the members of the Bank instead of a Committee looking after the management constituting the members who have no stake in the Bank and directed the committee to continue to manage the affairs in consonance with the provisions of the Act but not to take any policy decision. On such order, the Board proceeded to convene a meeting. This illegality was challenged in W.P. (C) No. 16607 of 2010 and on an assurance given by the Counsel for the Bank, this Court on 20.8.2010 disposed of the writ Application. Thereafter, another meeting was scheduled to be convened on 13.11.2010. Challenging such meeting another writ application in W.P. (C) No. 19359 of 2010 was filed, which was disposed of on 12.11.20 10 giving an order of stay for holding the meeting. The petitioner told that such orders of the Court revealed that non-stack holders have been nominated to the Committee. Hence, the very exercise of the power by such incompetent Board to convene a meeting and consider any application is an exercise without jurisdiction and, therefore, the decision of the said Board/Committee is non-est/illegal, which is liable to be set aside.