KANWAR RAJESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition petitioner Kanwar Rajeshwar Singh has challenged the validity of order (Annexure A-7) dated 15-11-1995 passed by the Registrar Co-operative Societies (Respondent No. 2) and confirmed in appeal by Commissioner cum Secretary (Co-operation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 4-4-1996 (Annexure A-10), whereby the election of the petitioner as Chairman President of the Jogindra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, (Respondent No. 3) has been set aside.

(2.) " The petitioner was elected as Director of 3rd respondent-Bank from Dharampur Block on 15-9-1995. He alongwith other four Directors sent a requisition on 16-9-1995 requesting Managing Director to call emergent meeting of the Board of Directors immediately vide Annexure A-l. The Managing Director of the respondent-Bank immediately acted upon the call of the Directors and fixed the meeting on 18-9-1995 at 10 A.M., in the Head Office of the respondent-Bank. A notice Annexure A-2 was sent to the eight Directors on 16-9-1995. calling upon them to attend the meeting on 18-9-1995 at 10 A.M. sharp. The agenda of the notice was : (i) Election of the President ; (ii) Election of the Vice President and (iii) Any other item with the permission of Chair. In pursuance of the notice only five persons attended the meeting including the Managing Director In the said meeting the petitioner was unanimously elected as Chairman/President, Shri Gur- charan Singh was elected as Vice President and Shri R. D. Sharma was unanimously nominated as representative of the Apex Bank. The copy of the proceedings of the meeting is annexed as Annexure A-3. One of the Directors namely Shri Mohan Mehta (respondent No. 4) approached the second respondent by filing election petition under Section 72 of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter 'the Act') read with Rule 38(6) of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971 (hereinafter' the Rules, 1971) for quashing the election of the Chairman/ Vice Chairman, praying postponing the said meeting of the Board of Directors on the ground that he had not received the notice of the meeting. The petitioner claims that 4th respondent personally met the second respondent at his residence at 9.00 A.M. on 18-9-1995 and despite his best efforts the meeting could not be postponed even with active support of certain politicians of the Ruling Party. The petitioner maintains that 4th respondent had signed the notice on 17-9-1995 in the name of 'Durga Singh' who is the nephew of 4th respondent. According to the averments of the petitioner, 4th respondent intentionally signed notice in the name of 'Durga Singh' with a view to approach the second respondent to have the meeting of the Board of Directors postponed till he would succeed to manipulate supports from other members. The second respondent vide order dated 18-9-1995 granted stay order restraining the petitioner from functioning as President of the respondent-Bank till the next date of hearing which was fixed on 30-9-1995. Copy of the order dated 18-9-1995 is annexed and marked as Annexure A-4.

(3.) The petitioner challenged these two orders in this Court by way of CWP No. 2102 of 1995. This Court on 1-11-1995 modified the order of the Registrar to the extent that for proper functioning of the Bank, Chairman and Vice Chairman were allowed to continue to function as such and second respondent was directed to dispose of the election petition within 15 days. Second respondent decided the election petition on 15-11-1995 vide Annexure A-7. The writ petition came up for orders on 2-1-1996 before the Court on which date it was observed that there is alternative remedy to the petitioner under 'the Act' to approach the State Government. The petitioner was allowed to file an appeal before the competent authority within 7 days. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government (respondent No. 1) with an application for stay of operation of the order of second respondent. The first respondent declined to grant the stay in favour of the petitioner and he had approached this Court again by way of CWP No. 197 of 1996. This Court on 24-1-1996 (Annexure A-B/1) stayed the operation of the impugned order of the first respondent. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by first respondent vide impugned order dated 4-4-1996 (Annexure A-10).