VIRENDER GAUTAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quash-ing the order, Annexure P-5, passed by respondent No. 2/03/1991, supersed-ing and suspending the Board of Directors (hereinafter called the Board) of the Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, Dharamsala (hereinafter called as the bank) and directing the appointment of an Administrator till elections of the new Board take place.

(2.) The bank is a co-operative society duly registered under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (Act No. 3 of 1969) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). Petitioners were the members of Board of the bank, duly elected in the year 1988, representing various co-opera-tive societies. the area of operation of the bank is within the districts of Kangra, Hamirpur, Una, Kullu and Lahaul-spiti with 78 branches spread over in all these districts. The board consists of 16 directly elected representatives from various co-operative societies and 3 nominated Directors by the State Government. It is the case of the petitioners that after they had been duly elected as Directors, representing various co-operative societies, the State Government nominated Sarvshri Jagdish Thakur, Mrs. Viplop Thakur and Manjit Singh as its nominees, who were expected to continue for a full term of three years but due to the change in the political set up, the State Government headed by Bhartiya Janta Party removed the 3 already nominated Directors and in place nominated its own party workers namely, Mrs. Beena Devi, Sarvshri Subash Vaid Rattan Arya and Virvirate Sharma vide Annexure P-1 order dated 4/04/1991.

(3.) On 29/01/1991, in exercise of her powers under Section 37(1-a) of the Act, respondent No. 2 passed order Annexure P-2 through which the Board was suspended and on the same day, a show-cause notice, Annexure P-3, was issued calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why they be not removed. According to the petitioners, this action was a device coined to supersede the Board and to achieve the objective of respondent No. 1 in inducting persons of B.J.P. as Chairman and Vice-Chairman. On receipt of the show cause notice, reply Annexure P-4 was submitted but ultimately, respondent No. 3, on 2/03/1991, passed the impugned order Annexure P-5 superseding the Board of Directors and appointing an Administrator in its place.