GOUTAM SAMAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Urban Co -operative Bank Ltd., Cuttack (opposite party No. 3) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') is kept under control of the Administrator or the Committee under the provisions of Section 32 of the Orissa Co -operative Societies Act, 1962 (in short, the 'Act'). While the Committee or the Administrator was in charge of the affairs of the Society, the Administrator or the Committee called for Annual General Body Meeting of the society as mandated by Section 29 of the Act. Though no individual notice in terms of Rule 26 of the Orissa Co -operative Societies Rules, 1965 (in short 'the Rules') was given, the notice was published in two dailies, i.e. one in vernacular and the other in English as provided and the publications dt. 8.6.2001 gave clear 15 days notice from the date of publication for the meeting to be held on 25.6.2001.

(2.) THE writ petitioners, who are the members of the society, have come up with the present writ petition challenging the notice convening the Annual General Body Meeting issued by the Administrator or the Committee and seeking quashing of that notice, as well as quashing of the decisions that may be taken in the Annual General Body Meeting. This Court while admitting the writ petition, by way of an interim order, permitted the Annual General Body meeting to be held, but stayed the implementation of the decisions taken in the meeting, until further orders. The meeting took place as scheduled. Out of 30,000 members, 734 members attended the meeting. The quorum for the Annual General Body meeting in terms of Bye -law 23 of the Society, is 30 or one -fifth of the members, whichever is less. Five resolutions were moved and passed in the Annual General Body meeting. Even though in respect of four of the decisions, the writ petitioners had no difference, one of the decisions was opposed by them and it related to the amendment of the Bye -laws. The amendment was carried. It is submitted that the amendment of the Bye -laws has been sent to the Registrar of Co -operative Societies for his approval in terms of Section 12 of the Act.

(3.) ANOTHER question raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is that an Administrator or a Committee appointed in terms of Section 32 of the Act, could not take policy decisions as has been clarified by the decision of this Court in Rahas Bihari Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. : AIR 1995 Orissa 23, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerata v. T. A. Kuttappan and Ors. : AIR 2000 SC 2378. There cannot be any dispute about this proposition. But the calling of an Annual General Body meeting to be held in terms of Section 29 of the Act, cannot be said to be a policy decision. It is in fact the carrying out of the administrative responsibilities by the Administrator or the Committee in terms of Section 29 of the Act. The Administrator, in our view, was bound to convene the Annual Genera! Body meeting in compliance with the mandate of Section 29 of the Act, and the Administrator or the Committee cannot be said to have exceeded its power in terms of Section 32 and the other relevant provisions of the Act. Therefore, the argument that the Annual General Body meeting could not have been convened by the Administrator or the Committee cannot be accepted.