JAGDEV SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While admitting this petition, the Motion Bench desired that this case be decided by constituting a larger Bench, as the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Haji Anwar Ahmad Khan v. The Punjab Wakf Board, AIR 1980 Pun and Har 306, required reconsideration. Later on, another petition - C.W.P. No. 2443 of 1989- Rajwinder Singh v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, was also admitted and was ordered to be heard with this writ petition (C.W.P. No. 6009 of 1987), as the same law point arose for determination in this case also. The former case, i.e. C.W.P. No. 6009 of 1987 is under the Harayana Co-operative Societies Act; whereas the latter case, i.e. C.W.P. No. 2443 of 1989 is under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act.

(2.) The question of law that requires determination is whether in the absence of any provision in the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Rules and the Bye-laws made thereunder (as also under the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, Rules and the Bye-laws made thereunder) for moving a motion of no-confidence in a President of a Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society/Chairman of a Board of Direitors of a Co-operative Bank, is it permissible to move such a motion on the assumption that there is such an implied power.

(3.) At the outset it may be observed that a similar matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Haji Anwar Ahmed Khanand's case (AIR 1980 Pun and Har 306) (supra) which was a case under the Punjab Wakf Act, 1954, wherein it was held that a Chairman of the Wakf Board could be removed by the members of the Board by passing a vote of no confidence, though there was no specific power under the Wakf Act or the Rules made thereunder for the removal of a Chairman by passing a motion of no confidence by the members of the Wakf Board. As stated in the opening paragraph, a later Division Bench doubted the correctness of the law laid down in Haji Anwar Ahmed Khanand's case (AIR 1980 Pun and Har 306) (supra) and referred the matter to a larger Bench for reconsideration of the correctness of the said case.