NARAIN MISHRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seven petitioners claiming themselves to have been elected as office bearers and members of the Managing Committee of the Narkatiaganj Co-operative Development and Cane Marketing Union Limited (to be referred to as "the Society" hereinafter) in the Annual General Meeting of its delegates held on 27-12-1983 under the presidentship of Singheshwar Prasad Verma (respondent No. 19) have filed this writ application under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the decision of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar (respondent No. 2) contained in letter No. 99 dated 4-1-1984, written by him to the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah (respondent No. 3) giving approval of the resolutions passed in the said meeting held on 27-12-1983 under the presidentship of Krishna Kumar Mishra (respondent No. 11) and requesting him to act accordingly, a true copy whereof has been annexed and marked Annexure 1 to this writ application. In Annexure 1, it has been mentioned that the annual general meeting held under the presidentship of respondent No. 11 is legal and the assertion of Singheshwar Prasad Verma (respondent No. 19) that he had completed the proceeding of the annual general meeting before 9.30 A.M. on 27-12-1983 does not inspire confidence.

(2.) The last annual general meeting of the election of the office bearers and members of the Managing Committee of the Society in which respondent Nos. 19 and 17 were elected as Chairman and Honorary Secretary respectively having been held on 30-12-1980, the term of the Managing Committee was expiring on 31-12-1983 and hence 5-10-1983 was the date fixed for holding the annual general meeting of the Society and for election, but before the holding of the meeting a dispute was raised before respondent No. 2, who, after hearing the parties, stayed the holding of the election on 5-10-1983 and directed that the election should be held after the disposal of objections relating to the delegates of the Society which were disposed of by the Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar, Muzaffarpur, and again 14-11-1983 was fixed as the date for holding of the election, but persons aggrieved by the decisions given by the Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2 who refused to stay the holding of the election. Thereafter one of the delegates filed revision under S.65-A of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (to be referred to as "the Act" hereinafter) before the Minister, Co-operation, who, after hearing, passed an order on 9-11-1983 and stayed the holding of the election, which order was also challenged by Shri Shankar Singh (respondent No. 7) in this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 5387 of 1983. This Court passed an order on 2-12-1983 directing respondent No. 2 to hear the matter on 5-12-1983 and pass orders as soon as possible. The respondent No. 2, in accordance with the direction of this Court, after hearing the parties, disposed of the matter by his order dated 5-12-1983, which was also challenged by respondent No. 7 and one Shamsul Hoda in this Court in C. W. J. C. 5710 of 1983 which was dismissed in limine by order dated 16-12-1983. Thereafter 27-12-1983 was fixed for holding annual general meeting of the Society and election of the office bearers and members of the Managing Committee under the orders of respondent No. 2 and the Minister, Co-operation. The meeting was directed to be held under the presidentship of respondent No. 19 and in accordance with the provisions of rule 21 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959 (to be referred to as "the Rules" hereinafter). Respondent No. 2 had also appointed respondent No. 3 to be an observer of the said meeting. According to the programme, the meeting was to be held in the premises of Smt. Matisara Kuer Balika Uchcha Vidyalaya at 9 A.M. As the District Magistrate (respondent No. 3) was otherwise busy, he deputed the Additional District Magistrate (Supply), Bettiah (respondent No. 4) to act as an observer of the said meeting. According to the scheduled programme, the meeting commenced at 9 A.M. on 27-12-1983 under the presidentship of respondent No. 19. So far, there is no controversy between the petitioners and the contesting respondents 7 to 18 and 20 as well as respondent No. 19.

(3.) According to the case of the petitioners and respondent No. 19, the meeting which started at 9 A.M. continued up to 10.30 A.M. Till then neither the Additional District Magistrate nor the District Co-operative Officer had come there. 22 delegates out of total number of 42 delegates attended the meeting which commenced at 9 A.M. under the presidentship of respondent No. 19 in which the petitioners were elected as office bearers and members of the Managing Committee. Shri Narain Mishra, petitioner No. 1, was elected as the Chairman, The newly elected members took over charge of the Society and started functioning. Shri Shankar Sharan Singh, respondent No. 7, who was the ex-Secretary of the Society, did not like that the meeting should be held under the presidentship of respondent No. 19, left the meeting with his groupmen who were 20 in number including himself and manufactured the proceedings of the meeting. He brought the Additional District Magistrate in his collusion and got a report made to the District Magistrate to the effect that when he reached, respondent No. 19 informed him that the meeting was over and the election had already taken place and saying this he left the meeting. Thereafter the meeting started under the presidentship of Krishna Kumar Mishra (respondent No. 11) under R.21(2) of the Rules in which different sets of persons were elected as office bearers and members of the Managing Committee. On the basis of his aforesaid report, the District Magistrate sent a report to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, mentioning therein that two groups of persons claimed to have been elected as office bearers and members of the managing committee. The petitioners claimed to have been elected in the meeting held under the presidentship of respondent No. 19, whereas the respondent Nos. 7 to 18 claimed to have been elected in the meeting held under the presidentship of respondent No. 11 and both of them attempted to enter the office and hence there was tension and he requested him to recognise and approve any of the aforesaid meetings and thereafter the persons elected in the meeting approved by him (respondent No. 2) would be allowed to enter the office and till the order was received, none of the persons of the aforesaid two groups would be allowed to enter. A true copy of the said report is Annexure 6 to the writ application. Thereafter respondent No. 2 sent the letter to the District Magistrate stating therein that the meeting held under the presidentship of respondent No. 11 and the resolutions passed in the aforesaid meeting should be recognised. A true copy of the letter is Annexure 1, as stated above.