RADHEY SHYAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners pray for quashing the notification dated 4-11-1980 issued by the State Government by which a new Managing Committee of seven members had been constituted. The grievance of the petitioners is that their names ought to have been found in Annexure 1 and their names should not have been replaced by the names of respondents No. 4 and 5. It may be stated here that by a supplementary affidavit filed in this Court (sic) a subsequent notification dated 26th March, 1981 by which the life of the aforesaid Committee constituted under Annexure 1 has been extended till 15-4-1981. A copy of this notification has been made Annexure 6 to this supplementary affidavit.

(2.) It appears that Magadh Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Gaya respondent No. 3, was superseded by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 41 (1) of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, on allegation of some charges of misconduct etc. This period of supersession was extended from time to time by the State Government and ultimately a Managing Committee consisting of seven members was constituted by notification dated 16th October, 1980. A copy of this is Annexure 2/1 to this application The names of the two petitioners find place in the said Annexure against serial Nos. 6 and 4 respectively. This notification mentions that this Committee was constituted for the purpose of better management of the Bank and for calling a general meeting for holding the election. These seven members of the Committee had to continue till 31-3-1981, or until further orders. It appears that shortly thereafter on 4-11-1980, another notification was issued substituting the previous notification Annexure 2/1. This notification is also in the same terms as Annexure 2/1 but here the Managing Committee of seven members was constituted without the petitioners and in place of two petitioners the names of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have been mentioned.

(3.) The grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the Government has no power to issue the notification, Annexure 1, replacing the previous notification, Annexure 2/1, at any time before the expiry of the period of earlier notification, namely, 31-3-1981. G. P. 5, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos. 1,2,& 3 however, contended that the first notification which was issued on 16-10-1980, itself reserves the power to issue any subsequent notification, as the previous notification itself mentions that the Committee was to continue until further orders or till 31-3-1981. According to the learned counsel, therefore, there is no illegality committed by respondent No. 1 in issuing Annexure 1 before the expiry of 31-3-1981. In my view the submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 is correct. This notification Annexure 1 does not, in fact, modify the previous notification contained in Annexure 2/1. It appears that it is a fresh notification issued by the State Government, respondent No. 1, the constituting a fresh Committee consisting of seven members, names of which have been mentioned in Annexure 1. As the notification, Annexure 2/1, itself states that the appointment pf the Committee was to continue until further orders, the State Government had the power to issue the subsequent notification contained in Annexure 1. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no substance.