NARESH YADAV Vs. SUDERSHAN MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made for quashing of order dated 25. 3. 1992 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karnal, exercising the powers of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that the petitioner, a Junior Accountant in The Karan Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Karnal was allegedly promoted as Chief Executive Officer by the Board of Administrators in their meeting held on 4. 10. 1991. One Balbir Singh (respondent No. 3) vide his application dated 29. 1. 1992 made to the Deputy Registrar exercising the powers of Registrar, complained that the meeting held on 4. 10. 1991 being illegal, be declared invalid under Rule 110 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Rules, 1989 (for short the 1989 Rules ). The meeting was sought to be annulled or invalidated on the ground that under rule 110 of the 1989 Rules, meeting of the Committee was required to be called after giving fifteen days notice whereas meeting was convened on 27. 9. 1989 for 4. 10. 1991. The other ground taken was that as per agenda item No. 4 of the meeting, the only item to be considered was the staff strength but the Board of Administrators promoted the petitioner from the post of Junior Accountant to the post of Chief Executive Officer whereas there is post of Senior Accountant between the Junior Accountant and Chief Executive Officer. The deputy Registrar exercising the powers of Registrar, vide order dated 25. 3. 1992 declared the proceedings of meeting dated 4. 10. 1991 as invalid on both the grounds and directed the Bank to reconsider the matter as per rules. This order is now being impugned here in this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No. 3 had no locus standi to file an application for setting at naught the proceedings of the meeting held on 4. 10. 1991. He further contended that seven days notice was required for holding meeting of the Board of Administrators and this having been done, respondent No. 1 was not justified in law in declaring the meeting invalid. In support of his argument, he referred to the judgment in K. Narasimhia v. H. C. Singri Gowda and Ors. , A. I. R. 1966 Supreme Court 330.