JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sultanpur Primary Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank, Sultanpur, District Kapurthala (hereinafter called 'the Bank'), is a society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). The Bank was registered as a cooperative society under the Act on November 21, 1969. The promotors of the Bank had elected the first committee of the Bank under bye-law 31 thereof on November 18, 1969, and their names were mentioned in the application for registration which was made to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab. It was necessary to mention their names in the application as is provided in Appendix 'A' to the Rules. According to bye-law 31 that committee was to continue for a period of three years proved that one-third of the members of the committee were to retire by lot every year. On March 4, 1971, rule 23-B was incorporated in the Rules, which reads as under :-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Bank has submitted that the first committee was elected by the promotors in accordance with bye-law 31 of the Bank and could continue in office for three years. Rule 23-B of the Rules, which was added with effect from March 4, 1971, is subject to the provisions of Section 26 (1F) of the Act, according to which the first committee has to be nominated by the authority mentioned in the bye-laws of the society. In the instant case the first committee had been elected by the promotors of the Bank in accordance with bye-law 31 and, therefore, could continue in office for a period of three years. To that committee rule 23-B did not apply and, therefore, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, could not call upon the petitioner-Bank to elect a new committee on or before September 23, 1971. The impugned order passed by him is, therefore, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and so it has to be quashed. Along with that order, the order passed by the revisional authority also falls, but even according to the order of the revisional authority, after February 28, 1972, the management had to be handed back to the managing committee which existed prior to September 22, 1971, as no elections were held upto that date. Thereafter respondent 4 had no right to continue in office as Administrator.

(3.) For the reasons given above, this petition is accepted and both the impugned orders are quashed. The Administrator is directed to hand back the management to the managing committee from which he took it over. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.