M H TIABI Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 17-7-2000 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Cooperation Department, as well as the corrigendum dated 10-8-2000 issued by the same authority (Annexure-9 and 10 to the writ petition). By the aforesaid notification and corrigendum, the authority in exercise of powers conferred by Section 31(3) of the Mizoram Cooperative Soceties Act, 1991 (hereinfater referred to as the Act) has sought to constitute an ad hoc executive committee by superseding the elected Board of Directors of the Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. The factual matrix necessary for adjudication of the dispute involved lies within a short compass and is enumerated herein-under.

(2.) The petitioner was elected as the Vice Chairman of the Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. on 19-5-2000 along with four others who were so elected as Directors admittedly, the Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. Is a cooperative society registered under the Act and the provisions of the said Act and rules framed thereunder are fully applicable to the Bank in question. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the election of the petitioner declared by communication dated 19-5-2000 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) was approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mizoram by his letter dated 2-6-2000 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) It would be evident from the said communication dated 2-6-2000 that as the post of the Chairman could not be filled up by election, the function of the Chairman was directed to be discharged by the Board and meetings of the Board were to be chaired by the Vice Chairman till such time the office of the Chairman is filled up. The petitioner contends that though he was entrusted in law to function after being elected as Vice Chairman, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies by order dated 17-6-2000 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) authorised the Managing Director of the Bank to exercise all powers of the Board and eventually by the impugned Memorandum dated 17-7-2000 and the corrigendum dated 10-8-2000, the elected body was superseded and in its place an ad hoc nominated body was appointed to run the affairs of the Bank in question. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up before this Court by way of the instant petition.

(3.) The State has filed an affidavit resistingthe contentions of the writ petitioner and asserting that though the petitioner and four other persons were elected uncontested to the Board of Directors, the said body could not function as the members required to be nominated as representative of the Govt. under clause 31 of the Mizoram Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. Bye laws were not appointed by respondent No.3 and the persence of atleast one Government nominee was a mandatory requirement under Bye laws 31(d) to confer validity to any particular Board Meeting. In the affidavit field on behalf of the State respondents, it has been stated that impugned actions were resorted to by the State Govt. by invoking S. 31 of the act on the basis of a report submitted by the National Bank of Agriculture and Rutal Development, in view of which report drastic measures were called for in the management of the Bank.