MAHENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. BIHAR STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by Annexure -1 office order No. 48 99 -2000/151 dated 23.9.2003 issued by the Managing Director putting the present applicant/Petitioner under suspension, the Petitioner has come to this Court inter alia submitting that the Managing Director under the Bihar State Scheduled Caste Co -operative Development Corporation Limited Bye -laws is not authorized to place him under suspension therefore the order is patently illegal and deserves to be quashed. Shri M.I. Hussain, learned Counsel for the Respondent Corporation vehemently submitted that the Board is not in existence, therefore, the powers of the Board would be exercised by the Managing Director. Though there are no provisions in the bye -laws of the said Respondent Corporation that in absence of the Board who would look after the functions of the Board, but the learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon Rule 34 of the Bihar Co -operative Societies Services Rules, 1959.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner took an exception to these argument and Shri P.K. Shahi, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 too, to nip in the bud submitted that the Board is very much in existence and the submission made by the counsel for the Respondent Corporation are calculated and have been made to mislead the Court.

(3.) IT is most unfortunate that a false plea has been raised before the Court to negative the claim of the Petitioner. It is also unfortunate that a counsel of the eminence is becoming result oriented and is trying to mislead the Court. At least on the four occasions he submitted that there is no Board but he nowhere that the member of the Board are available but they do not have the Chairman or the Chairman for one reason or the other can not preside over.