Th. Sabanam Devi vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The ... on 21 June, 2021

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Manipur High Court

Th. Sabanam Devi vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The ... on 21 June, 2021

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MPR 60

Bench: M.V. Muralidaran

                                                                                     P age |1
SHAMUR Digitally signed
        by
AILATPA SHAMURAILATP
        AM SUSHIL                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
M       SHARMA                                 AT IMPHAL
SUSHIL Date:
        2021.06.21
SHARMA 12:48:54 +05'30'                     WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019

                              Th. Sabanam Devi, aged about 41 years, D/o. Th.
                              Surangajit Singh of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
                              Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
                                                                            ... PETITIONER
                                                     -VERSUS-


                      1.      The State of Manipur represented by the Principal
                              Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Co-operation),
                              Government of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat,
                              Babupara, P.O.& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
                              Manipur-795001.


                      2.      The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, Office
                              at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West
                              District, Manipur-795004.


                      3.      The Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and
                              Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative
                              Bank Ltd., MG Avenue, Imphal, Manipur, Imphal Urban
                              Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Head Office), MG Avenue, P.O.
                              Imphal & P.S. City Police, Imphal West District,
                              Manipur-795001.


                      4.      The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., MG Avenue,
                              Manipur, represented by its Director / General Manager,
                              Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., office at MG




                 W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C)
                 No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C))
                 No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in
                 MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019
                                                                     P age |2



             Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City Police, Imphal West
             District, Manipur-795001.
                                                       ... RESPONDENTS

5. Huidrom Kesho Singh, aged about 65 years of Singjamei Kakwa Huidrom Leikai, P.O. Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei Imphal West District, Manipur-795003.

6. Th. Debeshwari Devi, aged about 45 years of Singjamei Makha Waikhom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

7. Khomdram Brajakumar Singh, aged about 57 years of Uripok Sorbon Thingel, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

8. Moirangthem Shyam Singh, aged about 60 years of Heirangoithong Singjamei, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

9. Leimapokpam Chaoba Singh, aged about 75 years of Singjamei Chirom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

10. Waikhom Jiten Singh, aged about 49 years, S/o (L) W. Chaoba Singh of Heingnag Mayai Leikai, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur-795002.

... PRIVATE RESPONDENTS W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P age |3 W.P. (C) No. 1059 of 2019

1. Shri Khoibam Achou Singh, aged about 81 years, s/o.

Late Kh. Tomallo Singh, resident of Nagamapal Soram Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795001.

2. Shri Thokchom Surangajit Singh, aged about 73 years s/o late Th. Jogendra Singh, resident of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

.....PETITIONERS.

-VERSUS-

1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat, Babupara, P.O.& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, Office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

3. The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., MG Avenue, Manipur, represented by its Director / General Manager, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., office at MG Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City Police, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

4. Shri T. Pradwipkumar Singh, Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of the Directors of the IUCB W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P age |4 Ltd. MG Avenue, Imphal, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City PS, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795001.

5. R.K. Kirankumar Singh aged about 64 years, s/o. R.K. Chandrahas Singh of Yaiskul Sanakhwa Yaima Kollup, P.O. & P.S - Imphal West, Manipur.

6. Shri Thokchom Dilipkumar Singh aged about 58 years, s/o late Th. Nipamacha Singh of Koirou Thongju Part-II, P.O. Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei, District-Imphal East, Manipur.

7. Shri Kangjam Meghachandra Singh aged about 60 years s/o late K. Tomchou Singh of Malom Tuliyaima, P.O Tulihal & P.S. Singjamei, District-Imphal West, Manipur.

8. Shri Chabungbam Tombi Singh aged about 72 years s/o late Ch. Angangjao Singh of Khurai Puthiba Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, District-Imphal West, Manipur.

9. Shri R.K. Mombisana Singh aged about 69 years s/o late R.K. Thambalsana Singh of Uripok Panchayat Maning, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Imphal, Distri-Imphal West, Manipur.

....RESPONDENTS WP (C) No. 207 of 2019

1. Yumnam Kumar Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o Y. Pishak Singh of Nagamapal Phougeisangbam Leikai, W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P age |5 P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795001.

2. Rock, aged about 47 years, S/o (L) Angphu of Langol Khunou, P.O. Pallel & P.S. Tegnoupal, Chandel District, Manipur-795135.

3. Th. Sabanam Devi, aged about 41 years, D/o. Th.

Surangajit Singh of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

... PETITIONERS

-VERSUS-

1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, Office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S.Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

3. The Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., MG Avenue, Imphal, Manipur, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Head Office), MG Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City Police, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

4. The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., MG Avenue, Manipur, represented by its Director / General Manager, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., office at MG Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City Police, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

... RESPONDENTS MC (W.P. (C) No. 17 of 2020) Ref: WP (C) NO. 1009 of 2019

1. Huidrom Kesho Singh, aged about 65 years of Singjamei Kakwa Huidrom Leikai, P.O. Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei Imphal West District, Manipur-795003.

2. Th. Debeshwari Devi, aged about 45 years of Singjamei Makha Waikhom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

3. Khomdram Brajakumar Singh, aged about 57 years of Uripok Sorbon Thingel, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

4. Moirangthem Shyam Singh, aged about 60 years of Heirangoithong Singjamei, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

5. Leimapokpam Chaoba Singh, aged about 75 years of Singjamei Chirom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

6. Waikhom Jiten Singh, aged about 49 years, S/o (L) W. Chaoba Singh of Heingnag Mayai Leikai, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur-795002.

......APPLICANTS

-VERSUS-

1. Thikchom Sabanam Devi, aged about 41 years, D/o.

Th. Surangajit Singh resident of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur- 795001.

....PRINCIPAL RESPONDENT

2. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat, Babupara, P.O.& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

3. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Manipur / Administrator, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and its Office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur, Pin-795004.

4. The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. represented by its Dy. General Manager who is the Chief Executive Officer (i/c) and its Office at MG Avenue, P.O. Imphal & W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P age |8 P.S. City P.S, District Imphal West, Manipur, Pin- 795001.

5. Shri T. Pradwipkumar Singh, Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of the Directors of the IUCB Ltd. MG Avenue, Imphal, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City PS, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795001.

.....RESPONDENTS MC (WP (C) No. 19 of 2020 [Ref: W.P. (C) No. 1059 of 2019]

1. R.K. Kirankumar Singh aged about 64 years, s/o. R.K. Chandrahas Singh of Yaiskul Sanakhwa Yaima Kollup, P.O. & P.S - Imphal West, Manipur.

2. Shri Thokchom Dilipkumar Singh aged about 58 years, s/o late Th. Nipamacha Singh of Koirou Thongju Part-II, P.O. Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei, District-Imphal East, Manipur.

3. Shri Kangjam Meghachandra Singh aged about 60 years s/o late K. Tomchou Singh of Malom Tuliyaima, P.O Tulihal & P.S. Singjamei, District-Imphal West, Manipur.

4. Shri Chabungbam Tombi Singh aged about 72 years s/o late Ch. Angangjao Singh of Khurai Puthiba Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, District-Imphal West, Manipur.

5. Shri R.K. Mombisana Singh aged about 69 years s/o late R.K. Thambalsana Singh of Uripok Panchayat W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P age |9 Maning, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Imphal, Distri-Imphal West, Manipur.

....APPLICANTS.

-VERSUS-

1. Shri Khoibam Achou Singh, aged about 81 years, s/o.

Late Kh. Tomallo Singh, resident of Nagamapal Soram Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795001.

2. Shri Thokchom Surangajit Singh, aged about 73 years s/o late Th. Jogendra Singh, resident of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

.....PRINCIPLE RESPONDENTS.

3. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat, Babupara, P.O.& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

4. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, Office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

5. The Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., MG Avenue, Imphal, Manipur, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Head Office), MG Avenue, P.O. W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 10 Imphal & P.S. City Police, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

6. The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., MG Avenue, Manipur, represented by its Director / General Manager, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., office at MG Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City Police, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

7. Shri T. Pradwipkumar Singh, Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of the Directors of the IUCB Ltd. MG Avenue, Imphal, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City PS, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795001.

... RESPONDENTS MC (WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 [Ref: W.P. (C) No. 207 of 2019] Yumnam Kumar Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o Y. Pishak Singh of Nagamapal Phougeisangbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795001.

....APPLICANT

-V E R S U S-

1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, Office at Lamphelpat, P.O.& P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

... RESPONDENTS.

MC (W.P.(C) No. 33 of 2020) {Ref: MC (W.P(C) No. 17 of 2020} {Ref: WP (C) NO. 1009 of 2019} Khomdram Brajakumar Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o. Late Kh. Achouba Singh of Uripok Sorbon Thingel, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

......APPLICANT

-VERSUS-

1. Huidrom Kesho Singh, aged about 65 years of Singjamei Kakwa Huidrom Leikai, P.O. Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei Imphal West District, Manipur-795003.

2. Th. Debeshwari Devi, aged about 45 years of Singjamei Makha Waikhom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

3. Moirangthem Shyam Singh, aged about 60 years of Heirangoithong Singjamei, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

4. Leimapokpam Chaoba Singh, aged about 75 years of Singjamei Chirom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

5. Waikhom Jiten Singh, aged about 49 years, S/o (L) W. Chaoba Singh of Heingnag Mayai Leikai, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur-795002.

.....PRINCIPAL RESPONDENT

6. Th. Sabanam Devi, aged about 41 years, D/o. Th.

Surangajit Singh of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

7. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat, W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 13 Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

8. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Manipur / Administrator, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and its Office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur, Pin-795004.

9. The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. represented by its Dy. General Manager who is the Chief Executive Officer(i/c) and its Office at MG Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City P.S, District Imphal West, Manipur, Pin- 795001.

10. Shri T. Pradwipkumar Singh, Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of the Directors of the IUCB Ltd. MG Avenue, Imphal, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City PS, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795001.

.....RESPONDENTS BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the Petitioners :: Mr. M. Hemchandra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Th. Rohitkumar, Adv., Mr. H. Ishwarlal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sh. Poireiton, Adv.

For the Respondents :: Mr. N. Ibotombi, Sr. Adv., Mr. A. Rommel, Adv., Mr. Lenin Hijam, Addl.AG, Mr. Ajoy Pebam, Adv., Mr. D. Julius Riamei, Adv..

W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 14 Date of Hearing and reserving Judgment & Order :: 09.04.2021 Date of Judgment & Order :: 21.06.2021 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) W.P.(C) No 1009 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner Sabanam Devi to quash the orders dated 22.10.2019, 26.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019 passed by respondents 2 and 3 respectively.

2. W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioners - Khoibam Achou Singh and Thokchom Surangajit Singh to quash the letter bearing No.78 Q Co-op/Case/Civil Revision No.17 of 2019 dated 16.12.2019 addressed to the State Government counsel.

3. W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioners - Yumnam Kumar Singh, Rock and Sabanam Devi directing the respondents to expedite/finalise/execute the process of election of Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Manipur in view of the notice dated 20.11.2018 issued by the Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of D rectors of the Imphal Urban Co- W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 15 op Bank Limited and to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28. 2.2019.

4. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, all three writ petitions and the miscellaneous cases filed in the writ petitions were taken up together and disposed of by this common order. W.P.(C) No. 1009 of 2019 :

5. The case of the petitioner is that she is a qualified and eligible Candidate to contest in the election of the Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and the election of the Board of Directors was supposed to have been held on 18.02.2018. However, the same has been hanging fire for one reason or the other, thereby rendering the Bank function without any Board of Directors for the past couple of years. According to the petitioner, the Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, issued a notice dated 20.11.2018 announcing ten candidates as eligible to contest the election of the Board of Directors or election of President, Vice-President and other Executive Members from the Board W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 16 of Directors for the formation of Board of Director for management of Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited by the representatives of the members of the Bank. However, the election has not been conducted till date.

6. Further case of the petitioner Is that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued orders dated 22.10.2019, 26.11.2019 and 29.11.2019 stating that the nomination papers of the Delegate of Board of Directors of Imphal Urban Co- operative Bank Limited for the term 2017-2018 to 2021-2022, which were rejected due to non-appearance of candidates/ proposer/ seconder at the time of scrutiny on 17.11.2018 and 19.11.2018, shall be re-scrutinised on 05.12.2019 between 11 am and 2 pm at the office of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited without any plausible reasons and thereby publishing the result of re-scrutiny notice dated 05.12.2019 by the Returning Officer. Challenging all these four orders, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

7. Resisting the writ petition, the official respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the Returning Officer issued a notice dated 12.11.2018 informing all candidates for election of Board of Directors for the Imphal Urban Co- W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 17 operative Bank Limited for the term 2017-2018 to 2021-2022 to the effect that at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers, all candidates should be present personally along with the proposer and seconder on 17.11.2018 and 19.11.2018, respectively. The Returning Officer, by another notice dated 20.11.2018, notified 15 persons out of which five candidates were notified to be not eligible to contest the Election of the Board of Directors for Violation of Clause 32 of the bye laws of the Bank and the remaining 10 candidates were found to be qualified to contest the election of the Board of Directors of the Bank. It is stated that aggrieved by the notice dated 20.11.2018, five candidates have filed Co-operative Revision Case No.3 of 2018 before the Manipur State Co-operative Tribunal. By the order dated 18.3.2019, the Tribunal set aside the notice dated 20.11.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and one Yumnam Kumar Singh have filed C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 before this Court and this Court, by an order dated 18.12.2019, disposed of the revision holding that since the order of the Tribunal was specifically in relation to five ineligible candidates, the question of setting aside the order of the Tribunal on that score does not arise and no order W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 18 is required to be passed at the behest of the revision petitioners, who apparently have no cause of action to file the revision as no relief was sought against the petitioners by the five ineligible candidates.

8. It is also stated that one Waikhom Jiten Singh filed W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 before this Court praying to allow him to participate in the election by conducting fresh scrutiny and he has also prayed for a direction to consider his representation dated 27.3.2019. By an order dated 10.9.2019, the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the Registrar Co-operative Societies to consider and dispose of the representation dated 27.3.2019 in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy Of the order. Pursuant to the order dated 10.9.2019, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued an order dated 22.10.2019 directing the Returning Officer to re-consider the nomination papers which were rejected at the time of scrutiny due to non- appearance of candidates/proposer/ seconder on the ground that Rule 26 of the Rules of Election of Delegates and Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited does not mention about the personal presence of the proposer and W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 19 seconder. In pursuance of the order dated 22.10.2019, the Returning Officer issued an order dated 26.11.2019 informing all concerned that the nomination papers which were rejected due to non-appearance of the candidates/proposer/ seconder at the time of scrutiny shall be re-secrutinised on 05.12.2019.

9. It is stated that by another notice dated 05.12.2019, the Returning Officer circulated to all concerned that while re-scrutinizing the nomination papers on 05.12.2019, the nomination papers of six delegates have been found to be in order. However, out of six, one delegate was found not eligible to contest the election for violation of Clause 33 of the bye-laws of the Bank. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2019, the ineligible delegate filed W.P.(C) No. 675 of 2020 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 22.12.2020 directing the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to consider and dispose of the representation dated 20.12.2019 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the said representation is now bending before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for disposal.

10. Respondents 5 to 10 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that all Shareholders of the Bank, including the petitioner and respondents 5 to 10, admitted that there is a need for holding the election of the Board of Directors of the Bank at the earliest. It is stated that the delegates namely R.K. Kirankumar Singh, Thockchom Dilipkumar Singh, Kangjam Meghachandra Singh, Chabungban Tombi Singh and R.K.Mombisana Singh have challenged the order dated 20.11.2018 whereby declaring the said six delegates not eligible for contesting in the election of Board of Directors of the Bank before the Co-operative Tribunal by filing Cooperative Revision Case No.3 of 2018. By the order dated 18.3.2019, the Tribunal, set aside the order dated 20.11.2018. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, two delegates filed Cp p.No.17 of 2019 and the Bank had also filed C.R.P.No.20 of 2019 challenging the very same order dated 18.3.2019. While C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 was pending, the Registrar of Co- operative Societies issued a letter bearing No.78-Q- Coop/Case/Civil Revision No.17 of 2019 dated 16.12.2019 in compliance of the order dated 18.3.2019. By the order dated 18.12.2019, C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 was dismissed and W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 21 C.R.P.No.20 of 2019 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.

11. It is stated that W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 was filed by respondent No.10 to consider his representation dated 27.3.2019 and after hearing both parties, this Court by an order dated 10.9.2019 directed the Registrar to consider and dispose of the representation dated 27.3.2019 within a time frame. According to private respondents, neither the petitioner nor any other person has challenged the order dated 10.9.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019.

12. According to respondents 5 to 10, if really, the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 10.9.2019, he ought to have approached the appropriate forum and, therefore, there is no wrong in the order dated 22.10.2019 and, in fact, the order dated 22.10.2019 was issued in compliance of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019. Moreover, until and unless the order dated 10.9.2019 is modified or quashed, the petitioner has no right to challenge the order dated 22.10.2019 issued by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies. According to respondents 5 to 10, there is no wrong in the orders dated 22.19.2019, 26.11.2019 and W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 22 29.11.2019 as the petitioner has failed to challenge the order dated 10.9.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019. W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2019:

13. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is Group-D member and the second petitioner is Group-F member and are elected delegates of their groups and also qualified to contest the election of Board of Directors.

Further case of the petitioners is that being aggrieved by the acts of the authority for non-holding the election, the petitioners and others had submitted a representation dated 28.2.2019 to the authority to complete the election process of the Board of Directors of Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited as early as possible.

14. According to the petitioners, five candidates namely R.K. Kirankumar Singh, Thockchom Dilipkumar Singh, Kangjam Meghachandra Singh, ChabungbamTombi Singh and R.K.Mombisana Singh are found not eligible to contest the election for violating bye-laws of the Bank had filed Revision Petition No.3 of 2018 before the Manipur State Co-operative Tribunal at Lamphelpat and the same was disposed of on W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 23 18.3.2019 with an observation that the notice dated 20.11.2018 issued by the Returning Officer was not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, the said notice was set aside. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.3 2019, Yumnam Kumar Singh and Sabanam Devi filed C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 wherein this Court passed an interim order dated 16.4.2018 suspending the order dated 18.3.2019 passed by the Tribunal in Co-operative Revision Case No.3 of 2018.

15. According to the petitioners, one W. Jiten Singh, who was one of the candidates of Group-I in respect of the Board of Directors/Delegates of Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited had filed W P.(C) No.722 of 2019 by concealing the material facts and records and made serious allegations against Yumnam Kumar Singh, who belongs to Group-I by filing applications to the authorities on 12.11.2018, 20.11.2018 and also concealing the order dated 18.03.2019 passed in the Co-operative Revision Case No 3 of 2018 and other connected matters and obtained an order dated 10.09.2019 without making necessary parties. Therefore, the impugned Orders dated 22.10.2019, 26.11.2019 and the corrigendum W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 24 dated 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019 cannot stand in the eyes of law.

16. The private respondents 5 to 9 filed affidavit-in- opposition stating that the Returning Officer issued notice dated 20.11.2018 whereby declaring the private respondents as ineligible candidates for Contesting the Board of Directors of the Bank. Aggrieved by the said Notice, the private respondents filed Co-operative Revision Case No.3 of 2018 and by the order dated 18.3.2019, the Tribunal quashed the notice dated 20.11.2018. Challenging the Order of the Tribunal, two elected delegates filed C.R.P. No 17 of 2019 and the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited filed C.R.P. No 20 of 2019 before this Court. Pending C.R.P., the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a letter dated 16.12.2019 in compliance of the order dated 18 3 2019 passed by the Tribunal and finally, C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 was dismissed by this Court on 18.12.2019, while C.R.P.No.20 of 2019 was withdrawn by the Bank with liberty to file afresh.

17. According to the private respondents, there is no wrong in the impugned orders and moreover the petitioners have no right to challenge the impugned orders unless the W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 25 order dated 10.9.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 is modified or quashed. Consequently, the private respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as the same was filed suppressing the material facts.

W.P. (C) No.207 of 2019:

18. The case of the petitioners is that they are all qualified/eligible candidates/delegates to the election of the Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited. The term of the earlier Board of Directors expired in the year 2017 and as such the election of the Board of Directors was supposed to have been held on 18.2.2018, however, the same has been postponed time and again for one reason or the other thereby rendering the Bank without any Board of Directors for the past couple of years. According to the petitioners, though the Returning Officer announced ten candidates as eligible to contest the election of the Board of Directors of the Bank, the election has not been conducted till date. Hence, the petitioners have filed the writ petition.

19. It appears that the respondents have not filed the counter affidavit in the writ petition.

20. Assailing the impugned Orders dated 22.10.2019, 26.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019, Mr. M. Hemchandra, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 submitted that the petitioner is a qualified and eligible candidate to the election of the Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and that the election was Supposed to have been held on 18-02-2018. However, for one reason or the other, the election has been postponed and that the Bank is running without the Board of Directors for the past three years.

21. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the Returning Officer had issued a notice dated 20.11.2018 announcing ten candidates as eligible candidates to contest the election of the Board of Directors or the election of the President, Vice-President and other Executive Members from the Board of Directors. While so, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 directing the Returning Officer to re-consider the nomination papers which were rejected at the time of scrutiny due to non- appearance of the candidates/proposer/seconder and that pursuant to the direction of the Registrar, the Returning Officer W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 27 issued the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 that the nomination papers shall be re-scrutinised on 05.12.2019 at 11 am to 2 pm at the office of the Bank. In the said notice, it was also directed that the re-scrutiny shall be conducted as per Rule 26 of the Rules of Election of Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited. He would submit that without any acceptable reasons, by the impugned order dated 05.12.2019, the Returning Officer published the result of re-scrutiny.

22. The main argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 is that one Waikhom Jiten Singh, who is one of the candidate of Group-I in respect of the Board of Directors of Imphal Urban Co- operative Bank Limited and who failed to the contest in the Board of Directors of Group-I, has filed W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 by concealing all relevant facts and levelling allegation against the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019, who belongs to Group-I by filing representations dated 12.11.2018 and 20.11.2018 to the concerned authority and also concealing the order dated 18.3.2019 passed in the Co-operative Revision Case No.3 of 2018 and its revision being C.R.P.No.17 of W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 28 2019, has obtained an order dated 10.9.2019 without making the affected parties, including the petitioner as respondents in the Said writ petition. Thus, the official respondents under the shadow of the order of this Court dated 10.9.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 has issued the impugned notices/orders in favour of the private respondents without having any source of law. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, prayed for quashing of all three impugned orders set out in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also prayed to expedite the process of election of the Board of Directors of the Bank in view of the notice dated 20.11.2018.

23. In support, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Jobra and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2019 SC 542.

(ii) J&K Housing Board and another v.

Kunwar Sanjay Krishnan Kaul and others, (2011) 10 SCC 714.

(iii) Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others, (1979) 3 SCC 489.

(iv) Ramesh Rout v. Rabindranath Rout, (2012) 1 SCC 762.

(v) Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114.

(vi) Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and others, (2010) 4 SCC 728.

(vii) Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration and others, (2011) 10 SCC 86.

(viii) Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and another v.

State of Gujarat 8nd others, (2004) 5 SCC 353.

(ix) Union of India and others v. Major S.P. Sharma and others, (2014) 6 SCC 351.

24. Mr. Ishwarlal, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 1059 of 2019 submitted that the petitioners are elected delegates of their respective groups W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 30 and also qualified to contest the election of Board of Directors. He would submit that the Returning Officer has notified that any interested and eligible shareholders who is desirous of being a Candidate may file their nomination papers in the prescribed Form-A along with Form-C to the authority concerned within the election schedule mentioned in the notification.

25. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the Returning Officer has issued several notifications on different dates that the programme for election will be changed due to extension of scrutiny time which were re-scheduled due to inability to complete the preparation of valid/invalid nomination papers within the schedule time. Thereafter, the election was re-scheduled on 29.4.2018 and the Returning Officer issued a notice thereby observing that no documents submitted by 15 candidates have been found in order. However, as per the order dated 19.11.2018, the authority found five candidates not eligible to contest the election for violation of Clause 33 of the bye-laws of the Bank and that 10 candidates are found to be qualified to contest the election. W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 31

26. The learned senior counsel next submitted that being aggrieved by non-holding of the election, the petitioners and others have submitted a representation dated 28.2.2019 to the concerned authorities to complete the election process as early as possible. In the mean time, W.P.(C) No.207 of the 2019 has been filed by Yumnam Kumar Singh and Th. Sabanam Devi seeking to expedite the process of the election and the said writ petition is also connected with W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2019.

27. The learned senior counsel then submitted that Sabanam Devi filed W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 to quash the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 issued by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and also to quash the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 issued by the Returning Officer and also sought to quash the impugned notice dated 05.12.2019 issued by the Returning Officer and the same is also connected with W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2019.

28. Per contra, Mr. Lenin Hijam, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents submitted that the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 was issued by the Registrar of Co-operative W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 32 Societies in compliance with the direction of this Court dated 10.9.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 and that the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 and the notice dated 05.12.2019 issued by the Returning Officer are the consequential order of the order dated 22.10.2019. In other words, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that this Court while passing the order dated 10.9.2019, issued direction to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to consider the representation dated 27.3.2019 in accordance with law. Therefore, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in order to correct the mistake which has been committed earlier by the Returning Officer, issued the order dated 22.10.2019 and as such there is no illegality in the order dated 22.10.2019 and the consequential order/notice respectively.

29. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that by the notice dated 20.11.2018, the Returning Officer notified the list of 15 candidates, out of which five were notified to be not eligible to contest the election and the remaining ten candidates were found to be qualified to contest the election. However, the said notice dated 20.11.2018 has been set aside by the Co-operative Tribunal in Co-operative W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 33 Revision Case No.3 of 2018 dated 18.3.2019. He would submit that aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2019, C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 was preferred, wherein the High Court clarified the order dated 18.3.2019 and as such, the same has attained finality. Arguing so, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the official respondents are willing to complete the election of the Board of Directors of the Bank as early as possible and this Court may direct the official respondents to hold the election of the Board of Directors of the Bank from amongst the elected delegates de-novo strictly as per the bye-laws of the Bank.

30. Opposing the prayers made by the petitioners, Mr. Ibotombi, the learned senior counsel for the private respondents 5 to 10 submitted that in compliance with the order dated 10.9.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued an order dated 22.10.2019 and thereafter, in pursuance of the order dated 22.10.2019, the Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited issued the order dated 26.11.2019 and, as such, there is no wrong in the orders dated 22.10.2019 and 26.11.2019 W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 34 and that the petitioner has no right to challenge the order dated 26.11.2019 unless said order dated 10 9 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 722 of 2019 is modified or quashed.

31. As far as the notice dated 20.11.2018 is concerned, the learned senior counsel submitted that the ineligible candidates for contesting the Board of Directors mentioned in the notice dated 20.11.2018 have filed Co- operative Revision Case No.3 of 2018 and by the order dated 18.3.2019, the said notice dated 20.11.2018 was quashed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2019 passed by the Tribunal, two elected delegates have filed C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 and pending C.R.P., the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a letter dated 16.12.2019 in compliance with the order dated 18 3 2019. He would submit that by the order dated 18.12.2019, CRP No 17 of 2019 was disposed of by this Court without interfering with the order dated 18.3.2019 passed in the Revision and thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.

32. This Court considered the Submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the materials available on record. W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 35

33. The grievance of one of the petitioners is that the authorities have issued the impugned orders/notices without any cogent reasons and published the result of re-scrutiny. According to the said petitioner, the order dated 22.10.2019 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, wherein direction has been issued to the Returning Officer to re-consider the nomination papers which were rejected at the time of scrutiny due to non-appearance of candidates, does not hold good in the eyes of law. Further, the act of the authorities in issuing the order dated 26.11.2019 is arbitrary in nature and there is no provision of re-scrutiny under the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act. Further, the subsequent impugned notice dated 05.12.2019 was also issued without having any statutory backing and all three orders are bad in law and the same deserve to be set aside.

34. The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited is a registered Cooperative Society registered under Section 5 of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976. The term of the Board of Directors has expired long back and the term of the Board of Administrator appointed in its place was extended from time to time and the Board of Administrator could not W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 36 conduct election of the regular Board of Directors. in exercise of power conferred under Section 78(1) of the Act, the authority concerned issued an order dated 30.3.2015 appointing the then Deputy Registrar as Administrator of the Bank, but the said Administrator failed to conduct the election and thereafter, the Deputy Secretary (Co-operative) issued another order dated 31.3.2016 appointing another Board of Administrators of the Bank for a period of six months or until further orders. Since the said Board of Administrators failed to conduct the election, the Deputy Secretary (Co-op) issued another order dated 15.6.2016 appointing one Tokpam Khumanasana Singh as a Board of Administrator for a period of six months or until further orders As the said Board of Administrator also failed to conduct the election, the Deputy Secretary issued an order appointing Ng.Thaba Singh as an Administrator.

35. It appears that upon the urgent necessity to hold election for appointment of the Board of Directors at the earliest without any delay, the Government of Manipur, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 78(A)(i) of the Act, was pleased to appoint the Board of Administrators of the W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 37 Bank for a period of six months or till a new Board of Directors whichever is earlier by issuing the order dated 22.5.2017. On 13.7.2017, the Governor of Manipur, in exercise of the powers conferred, appointed a new Board of Administrators. Aggrieved by the said order, W.P.(C) No.536 of 2017 came to be filed by the aggrieved persons. Pending W.P.(C) No.536 of 2017, one K.Sharat Singh had filed W.P.(C) No.549 of 2017 directing the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for holding election at the earliest date. After hearing the parties, this Court disposed of both the writ petitions vide order dated 06.9.2017. The operative portion of the order reads thus:

"In view of the above, both the writ petitions are allowed and consequently, the impugned orders dated 13.7.2017, 22.5.2017 and 17.3.2017 are quashed with the direction that the Registrar, Co- operative Societies shall insure that the election of the Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank is held for which the Registrar shall appoint a Returning Officer who will conduct the W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 38 election under Rule 4 of the Rules of Election of Board of Directors. Till the election is held in accordance with law, the interim order passed by this Court on 26.7.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 549 of 2017 shall continue to operate and accordingly, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies shall continue to take charge of Administration and Management of the Imphal Urban Co- operative Bank of new Board of Directors is constituted. It is further directed that the process of election shall be completed within 45 (forty-five) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

36. Since the authority concerned failed to hold the election within 45 days, a Contempt Case (C) No 205 of 2017 was filed and thereafter, the Assistant General Manager of the Bank issued notice dated 6.11.2018, whereby publishing a provisional list of voters admitted up to 3.2.2016 for election of delegates for the term 2018-2019 to 2022-2023 and by the notice dated 24.11.2018, a final list of members was W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 39 published. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies also appointed the Returning Officer and in exercise of powers conferred under Clause 23 of the Election Rules to the Delegates and Board of Directors of the Bank, the Returning Officer issued a notification dated 28.11.2017 notifying that the election of the delegates and Board of Directors for the term 2017-2018 to 2021-2022 will be held as per the schedule mentioned therein. After various adjournment and/or changes in the schedule, the election of delegates was completed and the candidates have also been elected from their respective groups. Thereafter, the Candidates have also submitted their nomination papers. By the Notice dated 12.11.2018, it was informed that all candidates should present personally along with the Proposer and seconder during scrutiny of groups i.e., Group-A to F on 17.11.2018 and Group-G to L on 19.11.2018.

37. It appears that subsequent upon the scrutiny of the groups for election of Board of Directors, the Returning Officer issued a notice dated 20.11.2018 stating that ten candidates were found to be eligible to contest the election of the Board of Directors and the name of the petitioner Thokchom Sabanam Devi found at Serial No.4. The ineligible W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 40 and eligible candidates have been stated in the notice dated 20.11.2018. For proper adjudication, the names of the candidates set out in the notice dated 20.11.2018 is extracted herein below:

"Ineligible candidates:

1.Rajkumar Mombisana Singh

2.Rajkumar Kirankumar Singh

3.Chabungbam Tombi Singh

4.Kangjam Meghachandra Singh and

5.Thockchom Dilipkumar Singh Eligible candidates:

1.Leimapokpam Dhananjoy Singh

2.R.K.Tony Singh

3.Khuraijam Ajit Singh

4.Thokchom Sabanam Devi

5. Thingbaijam Bimol Singh

6.Yumnam Kumar Singh

7.Rock

8.Wangkhem (O) Bounibala Devi

9.Maibam (O) Binashaki Devi and

10.Wangkheimayum Surjitkumar Singh"

38. Aggrieved by the non-holding of the election of the Board of Directors, the petitioners Sabanam Devi and Yumnam Kumar Singh have filed W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019 W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 41 seeking to expedite the process of election of the Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited.

39. In the meanwhile, aggrieved by the notice dated 20.11.2018, the five candidates, who were found ineligible to contest the election of the Board of Directors have approached the Manipur State Co-operative Tribunal by filing Co-operative Revision Case No.3 of 2018. By an order dated 18.03.2019, the Tribunal quashed the notice dated 20.11.2018. The operative portion of the order reads thus:

"40. This is not disputed by both parties that the petitioners are elected delegates and they are allowed to take the nomination papers and the nomination papers which they took for election of Board of Directors were allowed to Submit for scrutiny and the scrutiny were completed on 17.11.2018 to 19.11.2018. After completion of scrutiny, the petitioners except the petitioner No.5 are elected as un-contest to their respective Group. However, final result could not be declared due to pending election of some Group.

W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 42

41. This is also admitted by both parties that the State Government has clarified by issuing a letter being No.B/2/2016-Coop(IUCB)/17 dated 24/6/2017 that the incorporation of the desired mechanism i.e. "a mechanism be evolved by which Directors of UCBs, whose Boards have been superseded, are not allowed to become a Director of another UCB"

of RBI in the Cooperative Act of the State may take time as the same needs legal vetting etc. in the process of tabling the same on the floor of the Assembly. In other words, the Manipur State Co-operative Act is not amended till date by incorporating the mechanism desired by the RBI.

42. The Co-operative Revision Case No.2 of 2015 in which the order dated 30/3/2015 for supersession was restored by this Tribunal because it was not dismissed on merits of the case.

43. The parties of the present Revision Case have also agreed to continue the election from the stage of scrutiny of nomination papers of the election of Board of Directors of the Bank.

Under the circumstances stated above, the Notice being No.1/RO/Election/IUCB/2017 dated 20th November, 2018 issued by the respondent No.3 is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, the same has been quashed/set aside."

40. On a perusal of the order dated 18.3.20919, it is clear that the aggrieved candidates have not impleaded the eligible candidates listed Out in the notice dated 20.11.2018 as parties to the revision proceedings. On a further perusal of the order dated 18.3.2019, it is seen that the respondents therein have also raised an objection that the revision petition was hit by non-joinder of necessary parties, as the petitioners therein failed to make the candidates to contest the election of the Board of Directors of the IUCB Limited despite having a clear knowledge of the same to them. Admittedly, the Tribunal W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 44 has not answered the said point in its order. Further, there was no convincing reason given by the Tribunal in setting aside the notice dated 20.11.2018. Any order passed behind the back of the party who was directly involved and/or affected is unsustainable in the eyes of law. In the case on hand, admittedly, the order dated 18.3.2019 has been passed without knowledge of the eligible candidates, including the petitioners herein.

41. It is also seen that aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2019 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.1009 and 207 of 2019 have filed C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 before this Court. Pending C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019, respondent No.10 in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019, who belongs to Group-I, has filed W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 seeking direction to allow him to participate in the election of the Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited by conducting fresh scrutiny and also to consider his representation dated 27.3.2019. By the order dated 10.9.2019, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court and it is relevant to extract certain paragraphs and the operative portion of the order, which read thus:

W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 45 "Mr.K.Roshan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has also filed a representation before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur/respondent No.2 on 27.03.2019 requesting for allowing him to participate in the election of the Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited by conducting a fresh scrutiny.

It is also submitted that the petitioner shall be satisfied if an order is passed directing the respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 27.03.2019.

Mrs. Sundari, learned G.A. appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has no objection.

In that view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of by directing the Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Manipur/respondent No.2 to Consider and dispose of the W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 46 representation dated 27.03.2019 in accordance with law within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court.

With the above observations and directions, writ petition is disposed of."

42. By the order dated 18.12.2019, C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 was disposed of. The operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

"6. In this view of the matter, since this order of the Co-operative Tribunal is specifically in relation to 5 (five) other ineligible candidates who are respondents No.1-5 in the present case, the question of setting aside the order of the Tribunal on that score does not arise. No order is required to be passed at the behest of the petitioners who apparently have no cause of action to file this civil revision petition in view of the fact that no relief is sought W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 47 against them by the 5 (five) ineligible petitioners before the Tribunal in Co- operative Revision Case.

7. Hence, the civil revision petition stands disposed of accordingly."

43. It appears that in paragraph (4) of the order passed in the C.R.P., this Court observed that the notice dated 20.11.2018 clearly states that 10 candidates are qualified and eligible and there is no manner of indictment in so far as 10 eligible persons are concerned. This Court also held that the plea of the revision petitioners that the notice dated 20.11.2018 and the consequential order of the Co-operative Tribunal will affect all other eligible or qualified candidates has no relevance and without substance. The Tribunal's order cannot be made applicable to the 10 eligible candidates.

44. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that contrary to the prayer made by respondent No.10 in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 in his representation and the Order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued the Impugned order dated 22.10.2019 and that nowhere in the representation W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 48 dated 27.3.2019, Waikhom Jiten Singh (respondent No.10) made a prayer for re-scrutiny Of the nomination papers. Instead, he has prayed that the notice dated 12.11.2018 issued by the Returning Officer be cancelled.

45. On the above submission, when this Court perused the notice dated 12.11.2018, it is seen that the Returning Officer had called upon all the candidates for election of the Board of Directors for the term 2017-2018 to 2021-2022 that at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers all candidates should be present personally along with the proposer and seconder during scrutiny of the groups on the appointed date.

46. Admittedly, the private respondents have not challenged the notice dated 12.11.2018. If really the private respondents are aggrieved by notice dated 12.11.2018, they ought to have challenged the same, but the private respondents failed to do so. The nomination papers of the petitioners herein and other candidates have already been scrutinized by the authority and accordingly, the result has been notified vide notice dated 20.11.2018. On the contrary, in the impugned order dated 22.10.2019, the Registrar of Co- W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 49 operative Societies, by simply referring to the writ petition number, directed the Returning Officer to re-consider the nomination papers which were rejected at the time of scrutiny due to non-appearance of candidates/proposer/seconder. The order dated 22.10.2019 is extracted hereinbelow for reference: -

"No. B-COOP/1/UCB/CASE/2019/995:

Whereas, the Order dated 10/09/2019 of the Hon‟ble High Court of Manipur passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 directed respondent No.2 (Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Manipur) to consider and dispose of the representation dated 27/03/2019 filed by Waikhom Jiten Singh. And Whereas, the Notice No.1/RO/Election/UUCB/2017, dated 12/11/2018 issued by the Returning Officer to the election of delegates & BOD of IUCB Ltd. (RO) demands the personal presence of the Candidate along with his/her Proposer and Seconder.

W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 50 And Whereas, Rule No.26 of the Rules of Election of Delegates and Directors of the IUCB Ltd. does not mention about the personal presence of the Proposer and Seconder.

In the light of the above, the RO shall reconsider the nomination papers which were rejected at the time of Scrutiny due to non appearance of Candidates/ Proposer/ Seconder.

This Order is issued in compliance of Hon‟ble High Court of Manipur Order dated 10/03/2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019."

As stated supra, the prayer in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 is not to re-scrutinise the nomination papers and also this Court has not passed any positive direction to re-scrutinise the nomination papers which were rejected at the time of scrutiny due to non-appearance of candidates/proposer/seconder while disposing of W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019. There Is no dispute that the notice dated 12.11.2018 demands the personal presence W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 51 of the candidate along with his/her proposer and seconder and only after noting the personal presence of the candidate along with the proposer/seconder, the order dated 20.11.2018 came to be issued by the Registrar of C- operative Societies. Thus, without disclosing the material facts and impleading the eligible candidates, including the petitioners herein, the ineligible Candidates have filed the revision before the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the private respondents herein cannot take advantage of the order dated 18.3.2019 passed in the Co-operative Revision Case No.3 of 2018.

47. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the petitioner does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 52 correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the Writ Courts would become impossible.

48. In Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 SCC 326, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the facts and circumstances of the case should be seen in their entirety to find out if there is miscarriage of justice. If the appellant has not come forward with clean hands, has not candidly disclosed all the facts that he is aware of and he intends to delay the proceedings, then the Court will non-suit him on the ground of contumacious conduct. In the case on hand, the private respondents have failed to disclose the full facts and also suppressed the relevant materials which would be clearly evident from the materials available before this Court.

49. The impugned notice dated 26.11.2019 was issued informing all the concerned that the nomination papers of the Delegate of Board of Directors of Imphal Urban Co- operative Bank Limited for the term 2017-2018 to 2021-2022 which were rejected due to non-appearance of W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 53 candidates/proposer/seconder at the time of scrutiny on 17.11.2018 and 19.11.2018 shall be re-scrutinised on 5.12.2019 as per Rule 26 of the Rules of Election of Delegates and Board of Directors at the office of the Bank. The impugned notice/order dated 26.11.2019 reads thus:

"No. 1/RO/Election/IUCB/2017: Whereas in pursuance of orders by the Registrar of Co-

                    operative      Societies,      Manipur     No.     B-

                    Coop/1/IUCB/Case/2019              dated         22nd

October, 2019 it is hereby informed to all concerned that the nomination papers of the Delegate of Board of Directors of Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. M.G.Avenue, Imphal for the term 2017-2018 to 2021-2022 which were rejected due to non appearance of Candidates/Proposer/Seconder at the time of Scrutiny on 17/11/2018 and 19/11/2018 shall be re-scrutinised on Thursday, the 5th Dec. 2019 at 11 am to 2 pm at the office of the Imphal Urban Co- operative Bank Ltd. M.G.Avenue, Imphal. W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 54 Henceforth, the said rescrutiny shall be conducted as per Rule No.26 of the Rules of Election of Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd."

50. By referring to the provisions of the Manipur Co- operative Societies Act, 1976, Manipur Co-operative Societies Rules, 1977, Byelaws of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and the Rules for Election of Delegates and Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submit that there is no provision for re-scrutiny and therefore, the question of re- scrutinise does not holds good in the eyes of law.

51. Rule 25 of the Rules of Election of Delegates and Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited provides:

"25. Filing of Nomination Paper:

An eligible member desirous of Standing as a candidate for Directorship shall submit his/her nomination paper in Form - „D‟ to the Returning Officer before clear seven days of the date of W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 55 election. Proposer and seconder shall be of the same Group of the candidate."

52. Rule 26 speaks of the scrutiny of nomination paper, which reads as under:

"26. Scrutiny of Nomination Paper:

All nomination paper received in time shall be scrutinized by the Returning Officer. During the course of scrutiny, the Returning Officer may demand reliable confidential reports from the Bank regarding past relationship of the candidate with the Bank. Nomination papers found invalid by him shall be rejected and reasons for rejection shall be noted on such nomination papers."

53. As stated Supra, there is no provision for re- scrutiny of the nomination papers, which were rejected at the time of scrutiny. It is not the case of the private respondents that earlier their nomination papers were not scrutinized by the authority concerned before issuing the notice dated 20.11.2018.

54. At this juncture, the learned senior counsel for the private respondents submitted that the petitioners herein have failed to challenge the order dated 10.9.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 and therefore, unless the order dated 10.9.2019 is quashed and/or modified, the petitioners have no right to challenge the order dated 22.10.2019 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He would submit that in compliance with the order dated 10.9.2019 in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has issued an order dated 22.10.2019 and thereafter, in pursuance of the order dated 22.10.2019, the Returning Officer has issued the order dated 26.11.2019 and as such, there is no wrong in the order dated 26.11.2019. Moreover, the petitioners have no right to challenge the order dated 26.11.2019.

55. On a thorough perusal of the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that it is not Necessary to challenge the order dated 10.9.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 Of 2019, as the same was passed without going into the merits of the Case and the direction issued was only to consider and dispose of the representation dated 27.3.2019 submitted by Waikhom Jiten Singh. Moreover, Waikhom Jiten W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 57 Singh has not impleaded the petitioners and other eligible candidates as respondents in the writ petition.

56. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 submitted that while disposing of W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019, the important facts and records qua pending cases before this Court, if placed by the learned Government counsel, the order dated 10.9.2019 would not have been passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019. In the case on hand, as rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have failed to furnish vital facts before this Court at the time of passing the order dated 10.9.2019 in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019.

57. It is apposite to mention that while setting aside the notice dated 20.11.2018, the Tribunal has not given & specific finding as to under what ground the said notice was unsustainable in the eyes of law. That apart, the petitioners herein and the other eligible candidates mentioned in the notice dated 29 11.2018 have not been made as parties in the revision also. The only respondents are (i) The Registrar of Cooperative Societies; (ii) The Deputy General Manager, W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 58 Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and (iii) The Returning Officer.

58. The specific contention of the respondents in the Co-operative Revision Case No.3 of 2018 is that the petitioners therein were declared as ineligible candidates from contesting the election of the Board of Directors for violation of the Clause 33 of the bye-laws of the Bank and further 10 candidates were declared as qualified to contest the election of the Board of Directors of the Bank. Further contention of the respondents is that if the notice dated 20.11.2018 is quashed, the rights of the candidates who were found to be qualified to contest the election of the Board of the Directors of the Bank will be adversely affected. Admittedly, in its order, the Tribunal has not given any specific finding as to the rights of the candidates who were found eligible to contest the election. However, the Tribunal in its order recorded that the parties of the revision have also agreed to continue the election from the state of the scrutiny of the nomination papers of the election. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners Sabanam Devi and Yumnam Kumar Singh have filed C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 and while disposing of the C.R.P., this W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 59 Court observed that 10 candidates are qualified and eligible and there is no manner of indictment in so far as 10 eligible candidates are concerned.

59. On a perusal of the notice dated 20.11.2018, it is clear that the Returning Officer, in the very first line stated that "... While scrutiny of nomination papers for election of Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, M.G. Avenue, Imphal for the term 2017-18 to 2021-22 (5 years), it is observed that the documents submitted by the 15 (fifteen) candidates/delegates have been found in order". Thus, it is clear that only upon the scrutiny of nomination papers, the Returning Officer has issued the notice dated 20.11.2018 declaring 10 candidates eligible and 5 candidates ineligible. Therefore, the alleged agreement recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 18.3.2019 that the parties of the revision have also agreed to continue the election from the state of the scrutiny of the nomination papers of the election is without any basis. Hence, the private respondents by taking shelter of the order passed in the revision cannot claim re- scrutiny of the nomination papers submitted by them. W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 60

60. That apart, the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is not in accordance with the order passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019, as in the said writ petition, this Court only directed the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to consider and dispose of the representation dated 27.3.2019 within a specified time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 has been issued without application of mind and, particularly, contrary to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019. Since the notice dated 22.10.2019 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is not in consonance with the direction of the Court in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019, the consequent order dated 26.11.2019 and the corrigendum dated 29.11.2019 are also liable to be set aside. Since there is no question of re-scrutiny of nomination papers, the publication of result of re-scrutiny vide notice dated 05.12.2019 issued by the Returning Officer does not arise and any re-scrutiny done by the official respondents will not affect the rights of the petitioners herein and therefore, the notice dated 05.12.2019 is also liable to be set aside. W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 61

61. As far as W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2019 is concerned, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners Submitted that while C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 is pending and also passed an interim order dated 16.4.2019 suspending the order dated 18.3-2019 passed in Co-operative Revision Case No.3 of 2018, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies addressed the impugned letter dated 16.12.2019 to the learned Government counsel to move the High Court for disposal of the Revision Case No.17 of 2019 to avoid any further legal complications.

62. According to the learned senior counsel, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot under the law issue such letter to the Government counsel by overlooking the connected cases being W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019 and C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 which were pending before this Court at the relevant point of time. He would submit that the interim order dated 16.4.2019 passed by this Court in the C.R.P. was in force till 18.12.2019 when the C.R.P. was disposed of. Moreover, there is no any provision for re-scrutiny in the Rules for Election of Delegates and Director of Imphal Urban Co- operative Bank Limited and as such the impugned letter dated 16.12.2019 is not maintainable in the eyes of law. W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 62

63. In the impugned letter dated 16.12.2019, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies stated as under:

"In continuation of the letter of even No. dated 11/12/2019 I am to state that in view of the Order dated 18/03/2019 passed by the Hon‟ble Co-operative Tribunal in Revision No.3 of 2018, the 5 (Five) elected candidates who have been declared not eligible for contesting the election of the Board of Directors (Directorial Candidates) vide the Notice No.1/RO/Election/ICUB/ 2017 dated 20/11/2018 issued by the Returning Officer for election to the delegates and Board of Directors of the IUCB Ltd. will now be eligible for contesting the said election. Further, the 10 (ten) eligible candidates who were declared eligible as per the aforesaid Notice No.1/ RO/Election/IUCB/2017 dated 20/11/2018 will also be allowed to contest the election. W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 63 Therefore, you are requested to move the Hon‟ble High Court for disposal of Civil Revision No.17 of 2019 to avoid any further legal complicacies."

64. Since the referred C.R.P.NO.17 of 2019 has been disposed of by this Court on 18.12.2019 upon hearing the parties therein, now the question for setting aside the impugned letter dated 16.12.2019 does not arise and therefore, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1059 is liable to be disposed of recording that the C.R-P.No.17 of 2019 has already stands disposed of. Since the prayer in W-P-(C) No.1059 of 2019 is to set aside the letter dated 16.12.2019 addressed to Shri S. Nepolean Singh, State Government counsel and C.R.P.No.17 Of 2019 was disposed of, this Court has not further elaborated upon the other submissions made by the learned senior counsel qua the impugned notice/order challenged in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019.

65. Coming to W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019, the grievance of the petitioners is that the term of earlier Board of Directors expired long back and thus, there is a need for W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 64 holding the election for election of the Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited at the earliest. According to the petitioners, the election has been postponed for one reason or the other for the past three years.

66. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the official respondents are willing to complete the election of the Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co- operative Bank Limited as early as possible and this Court may direct the official respondents to hold the election of the Board of Directors of the Bank from amongst the elected delegates de-novo strictly as per the bye-laws of the Bank.

67. It is true that the Board of Directors play a vital role in the proper and smooth running of the Imphal Urban Co- operative Bank Limited and delaying the election of the Board of the Directors would definitely cause hindrance not only to the Bank, but also to the general public.

68. The law provides that prior to the expiry of the term of the Board of Directors, the process of election was to be initiated, but in the instant case, the former Board of Administrators appear to have failed to do that, as a result of W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 65 which, the parties have approached the Court and directed the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to ensure that the election of the Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited is held for which the Registrar shall appoint a Returning Officer who will conduct the election under the applicable Rules.

69. As stated supra, upon calling for applications and scrutising the same, the Returning Officer issued a notice dated 20.11.2018 announcing 10 candidates as qualified to contest the election of the Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and in the earlier paragraphs, this Court held that the impugned order/notice dated 22.10.2019, 26.11.2019 and 05-12-2019 issued are not in consonance with the order passed in the earlier Proceedings. Therefore, this Court finds some force in the prayer of the petitioners to expedite/finalise the process of election of the Board of Directors in view of the notice dated 20.11.2018.

70. Since this Court delved into the matter on merits based on the materials produced by both sides and threadbare analysed the factual matrix and the law is well W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 66 settled and on a different footing than in the decisions cited, this Court has not elaborated upon the decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019.

71. The private respondents in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 have filed Miscellaneous Case No.17 of 2020 to vacate the interim order dated 20.12.2019 passed in the writ petition. Similarly, the private respondents in W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2019 have filed Miscellaneous Case No.19 of 2020 to vacate the interim order dated 20.12.2019 passed in the writ petition.

72. It appears that this Court by the order dated 20.12.2019 directed the respondents therein to maintain status quo as on 05.12.2019.

73. In view of the findings arrived at by this Court in the earlier paragraphs, the question of vacating the interim order dated 20.12.2019 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.1009 and 1059 of 2019 does not arise and the Miscellaneous Case Nos.17 and 19 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No.1009 and 1059 of 2019 are liable to be dismissed.

74. In the result, W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 67 (1) W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the consequential notice/order dated 26.11.2019 and the corrigendum issued by the Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-

operative Bank Limited and also the impugned notice dated 05.12.2019 issued by the Returning Officer are quashed.

(2) W.P.(C) No.1059 Of 2019 is disposed of, as C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 stands already disposed of vide Order dated 18.12.2019.

(3) W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019 is allowed. The official respondents are directed to expedite/finalise/execute the process of election of Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited in view of notice dated 20.11.2018 issued by the W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 68 Returning Officer so as to facilitate the Bank to function properly and smoothly.

(4) The official respondents are also directed to hold the election of the Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited from amongst the elected delegates strictly as per the bye-laws of the Bank and also as per the applicable laws as expeditiously as possible.

(5) M.C.No.17 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 and M.C.No.19 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2019 are dismissed.

(6) Consequently, M.C.(WP(C)) No.33 of 2020 in M.C.(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 and M.C.(WP(C)) No.171 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019 are also dismissed.

JUDGE FR/NFR Sushil W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Manipur High Court