KHAGESWAR ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus quashing the order in Annexure 2 dated 22-91971 and for a declaration that the resolution (Annexure 1) dated 22-8-1971 passed in the meeting of the Jute Marketing Co-operative Society (O. P. No, 3) is illegal and invalid. The Jute Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. , Danpur (O. P. No. 3) (hereinafter referred to as the Society) is a duly registered cooperative society under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). It has its registered bye-laws and consists of 5000 members one of whom is the petitioner.

(2.) IN exercise of his powers under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act, the registrar of Co-operative Societies, Orissa (O. P. No. 2) called upon the Society to amend certain of its bye-laws in the manner indicated in Annexure 4 within 30 davs of the issue of that notice. A General Body meeting of the Society was convened on 22-8-1971 within the time allowed where amendments as suggested by the Registrar were adopted. A copy of the resolution was for" warded to the registrar who thereafter registered the amendments by order Annexure 2 dated 22-9-1971. It is the legality of that order registering the amendments which is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner who is one of the members of the Society contends that in adopting the amendments, the General Body meeting of the Society did not follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 14-A of the Orissa Cooperative societies Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), that notices to the members regarding the holding of the General Body meeting had not been issued in the mannet prescribed by the Rules and the "relevant bye-laws on the subject with the result that the petitioner who had no notice of the meeting could not attend it; that the proceedings of the General Body meeting were vitiated by reason of some outsiders participating in the meeting and taking part in the voting; and that in suggesting amendments to the bye-laws, the Registrar failed to specify the reasons for the same as required under R. 14-A of the Rules. It is further contended that the proceedings of the meeting were also vitiated by reason of the fact that the Joint Director of Marketing who is a representative of the Registrar had participated in the meeting. Being aggrieved by the order of the registrar registering the amendments of the bye-laws, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 109 (1) (c) of the Act to the State Goovernment complaining of the various irregularities committed in convening and conducting the General body meeting but the appeal was dismissed by Government as not maintainable (vide Annexure 3 ). It is thereafter that this writ application has been filed claiming the reliefs already mentioned.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 3 in his counter affidavit denied the allegation that there was no proper service of notice regarding the holding of the General Body meeting. He stated that bye-law 18 (2) of the Society which prescribes the modes of issuing notice for a General Body meeting provides for the issue of notice in either of the three ways, namely, (a) by affixing a copy of the notice for the meeting in some conspicuous place in the area of operation of the Society and id the office of the society, (b) by circulation of the notice book and getting signature of members in it, or (c) by sending the notice by post under certificate of posting. On receipt of annexure 4 from the Registrar, the Board of Directors at the meeting held by them on 2-6-1971 decided that the notices regarding convening of the General Body meeting should be affixed at every centre within the area of operation of the society and in the notice boards in the Society's office at Cuttack and Panchayat samiti Office and in the offices of the Assistant Registrars of Kendrapara, Jaipur, cuttack, Banki and Keonjhar, and at the offices of the Deputy Registrars of cooperative Societies, Cuttack and Keonjhar, and in addition to these, the notice should be published in the consecutive issues of daily Samaj (vide Annexure B-3 ). In accordance with the decision taken by the Board of Directors in the resolution annexure B-3, notices were issued and the publication made in the Samaj. It is stated that reasons for the amendments proposed were given in Annexure 4. The allegation that outsiders participated in the meeting is denied and there was no division, the occasion to vote did not arise and consequently the allegation that outsiders participated in the voting is not correct. In the circumstances it is averred that the petitioner was not prejudiced in any way. If at all he is aggrieved, it is open to him to raise a dispute under Section 68 of the Act and consequently he has no right to file this writ application.