Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gulab Singh vs State Of Haryana on 7 July, 2000
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill
JUDGMENT S. S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. Petitioner Gulab Singh was elected as a Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Hisar District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Hisar (here-in-after referred to as 'the Bank') on 3.10.1997. On 1.1.2.1999, respondent Nos. 6 to 17 made a request to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana (respondent No. 5) for convening a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank for the purpose of no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 forwarded the requisition to the Managing Director of the Bank (respondent No. 5) for further action. On 9.12.1999, respondent No. 2 for (sic) Agenda for holding a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank on 27.12.1999 to consider the request of the Directors regarding the no-confidence motion against the petitioner.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned requisition dated 1.12.1999 (copy Annexure P/2) and impugned Agenda dated 9.12.1999 (copy Annexure P/3) circulated for the purpose of holding a meeting of no-confidence motion against the petitioner are contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act and liable to be set aside. Petitioner has contended that according to Section 30-A of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the motion of no-confidence could be brought only if there are specific allegations levelled against the Chairman and according to the petitioner, no specific allegations were levelled against him and therefore, the motion of no-confidence could not have been brought. Petitioner has prayed that the impugned Agenda dated 9.12.1999 for convening a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank and the impugned requisition dated 1.12.1999 made by respondent Nos. 6 and 17 (copy Annexure P/2) be quashed. He has also made an interim prayer for staying the operation of Annexures P/2 and P/3 during the pendency of this writ petition and that the Managing Director of the Bank be restrained from holding a meeting of the Board of Directors.
3. When this case came up for motion hearing on 20.12.1999, this Court issued notice of motion for 23.12.99. Again after service of the notices on the respondents (except respondents No. 10 and 16), it was ordered that the meeting in furtherance of the notice already issued and stated to be fixed for December 27, 1999 may be held, but the resolution, if any, passed in the meeting would not be given effect to, till further orders of this Court. Written statements were filed by respondent No. 5 and also by respondents No. 6 to 10, 12, 13 and 15 and 16.
4. The matter came up for hearing today. We have heard Mr. H.S. Hooda, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C.R. Dahiya, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. S.S. Dalai, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. Mr. Hooda argued that the requisition, Annexure P/2 dated 1.12.1999 was not in accordance with the required provisions of the law and, therefore, no meeting for voting on the no-confidence motion could be convened in pursuance of the same. The text of the requisition, Annexure P/2, is as below :-
"We all Directors of the Hisar District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Hisar expressing our No Confidence against Shri Gulab Singh, Chairman of C.B. Hisar request you to convene the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank and seek Vote of Confidence in favour of the office of Chairman."
5. Mr. Hooda has relied on Section 30-A of the Act. It reads as under :-
"30-A. No-confidence motion against Chairman and Vice-Chairman. - The elected members of the committee may bring a motion of no-confidence against the elected office-bearers i.e. Chairman and Vice-Chairman other than the Government by levelly specific allegations against such Chairman and Vice- Chairman. If the motion of no-confidence is passed by a resolution of 2/3rd majority of the total number of the elected members of the society concerned at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, the Chairman and Vice- Chairman shall cease to function as such with immediate effect and the election of new office-bearers shall be held within two months of the removal in accordance with Section 30 of the Act :
Provided that xx xx xx xx".
From the highlighted words in the above section, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there are no specific allegations levelled against him and, therefore, a meeting for the purpose of no-confidence motion could not be convened and the Agenda for the meeting was illegal and may be quashed. Counsel for the respondent No. 5 argued that the resolution passed could be challenged only in accordance with Section 27 of the Act. Section 27 of the Act regarding rescinding of the resolution reads as under :-
"27. Rescinding of resolutions :- (1) The Registrar may, by order in writing, suspend the resolution of a managing committee or of a sub-committee of a co- operative society if in his opinion the resolution is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act, rules or bye-laws or the execution of the resolution will be contrary to the interest of the society or the interest of the members thereof or is likely to cause waste or damage of the funds of the society.
(2) When the Registrar makes any order under subsection (1), he may after giving the committee or sub-committee, as the case may be, an opportunity of being heard rescind such resolution or may order that such resolution may continue in force with or without modification permanently or for such period as he may think fit :
Provided that such resolution may be rescinded or modified even if the same could not be suspended because of its having been acted upon."
6. Counsel for the respondent has also argued that the resolution by which vote of no-confidence has been passed is not under challenge. He has also argued that the Act has made provisions for appeal and revision and the provisions are not availed of and, therefore this writ petition is not maintainable.
7. However, when the writ petition was filed, the impugned resolution was not passed and the impugned resolution is subject to the further orders that this Court will pass as ordered by order dated 23.12.1999. If the requisition is not legal then further proceedings passed on the said requisition which are subject to the decision of the writ petition cannot be said to be valid. It is not shown as to how the resolution is appealable under Section 114 of the Act. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show as to how the matter can be put in the Agenda of the meeting if it is not in compliance with Section 30-A of the Act. It is clear that no allegations arc made against the petitioner in the application for no-confidence motion (copy Annexure P/2). Counsel for respondent No. 5 also, on questioning, could not show that the meeting could be held even if there were no specific allegations as mentioned in Section 30-A of the Act.
8. In view of the above position, we accept the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the requisition made on the application, Annexure P/2, was not legal and the Agenda for the meeting for the vote of no-confidence motion was not legal and thus, the subsequent proceedings also collapse. More so, they were subject to the decision of the writ petition. As a result this petition is allowed. The impugned Agenda dated 9.12.1999 (copy Annexure P/3) and the impugned requisition dated 1.12.1999 (copy Annexure P/2) made by respondents No. 6 to 17 are held to be not in accordance with the provisions of law and hereby quashed. Furthers action based on the same and which was subject to the decision of the writ petition i.e. passing of the resolution of vote of no- confidence automatically stands quashed.
9. Petition allowed.