RAMAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Elections to the Board of Directors of the Pathankot Hindu Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pathankot (for short the Bank) were held on 8-6-1998 in which seven Directors were elected including the petitioner. A meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank was held on 24-6-1998 and one of the items on the agenda was to co-opt two Directors. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were co-opted. Feeling aggrieved by their co-option, the petitioner challenged the same before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab under Section 69 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) alleging that they were ineligible to be co-opted as they had already served as Directors of the Bank for a period of eleven years without any gap of one term as required under the Act. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 26-B of the Act, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 could not be co-opted on the Board as under Rule 23-A of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963 (for short the Rules) read with Section 26-A, a co-opted Director should fulfil the conditions and qualifications prescribed for an elected Director of the Board. The Registrar dismissed the revision petition holding that the co-option of Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 had been made under Bye-law 22 of the Bye-laws of the Bank and did not attract the disqualifications prescribed by the Act. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Registrar dismissing the revision petition.

(2.) We have heard counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The only argument advanced before us is that sub-section (2) of Section 26-B of the Act debars Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 from being co-opted as they had already served as Directors for a period of eleven years without any gap of one term. He also referred to the provisions of Rule 23-A of the Rules to contend that Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 do not belong to any scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or backward class nor are they from amongst members who hold, as land-owner or tenant or as both not more than two standard acres of agricultural land and, therefore, they could not be co-opted. Before we deal with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 26A, sub-section (2) of Section 26B of the Act and Rule 23A of the Rules which are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:-