Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Co-Operative ... vs Ishwarbhai Baldevbhai Chaudhary on 11 May, 2018
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 584 of 2018
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15732 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 585 of 2018
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4683 of 2018
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 589 of 2018
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15732 of 2017
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED
Versus
ISHWARBHAI BALDEVBHAI CHAUDHARY
==========================================================
Appearance:
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.584 OF 2018:
MR BS PATEL FOR MR CHIRAG B PATEL(3679) for the PETITIONER(s)
No. 1
10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, AGP(1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3
MR DIPEN DESAI(2481) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.585 OF 2018:
MR BS PATEL FOR MR CHIRAG B PATEL(3679) for the PETITIONER(s)
No. 1
10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, AGP(1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3
MR DIPEN DESAI(2481) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.589 OF 2018:
MR MIHIR THAKORE, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR ARCHIT JANI for the
PETITIONER(s) No. 1
10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, AGP(1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3
MR DIPEN DESAI(2481) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
Page 1 of 22
C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 11/05/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
1. These appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellants against the common oral order dated 3.5.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4683 of 2018 with Special Civil Application Nos.15732 of 2017 and 17697 of 2017.
2. As the issue involved in these appeals is similar and as the learned Single Judge has passed a common order, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, these appeals are heard together and disposed off by this common order.
3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeals are as under:
3.1 That Special Civil Application No.17697 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner-bank challenging the order dated 31.8.2018 passed by the Gujarat Cooperative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal' for short) in Page 2 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER Revision Application No.124 of 2017. Special Civil Application No.15732 of 2017 has been preferred by two petitioners claiming to be elected delegates of Shakha Samiti of the bank seeking appointment of Custodian in the bank in view of Section 74D of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short), whereas Special Civil Application No.5683 of 2018 was preferred by the concerned petitioner claiming to be member of the respondent-bank. In the said petition, he has also sought direction for appointment of Custodian in the respondent-bank. Learned Single Judge allowed all the three petitions i.e. petition filed by the petitioner-bank whereby the order passed by the Tribunal has been set aside.
At the same time, learned Single Judge allowed the other two petitions also wherein the concerned petitioners sought direction for appointment of the Custodian and therefore necessary direction is given to the Registrar.
3.2 As the learned Single Judge has allowed Special Civil Application No.15732 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.4683 of 2018 in which direction is given to appoint Custodian, the appellant-petitioner-bank has filed two separate appeals whereas Letters Patent Appeal No.589 of 2018 has been filed by four directors-
Page 3 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDERoriginal respondents of Special Civil Application No.15732 of 2017 challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.15732 of 2017.
3.3 As there is no challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.17697 of 2017 preferred by the petitioner-bank in these appeals, we are concerned with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for appointment of Custodian passed in two other Special Civil Applications and therefore the facts set out in Special Civil Application No.15732 of 2017 are considered.
3.4 It is the case of the original petitioners that they are elected delegates of Shakha Samiti of respondent no.3-bank. The respondent no.3-bank is Gujarat State Cooperative and Agriculture Rural Development Bank which is Apex society in the state of Gujarat and it is also specified society within the meaning of Section 74C of the Act and therefore the elections are to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XI(A) of the Act read with Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1982 by the city Deputy Collector. It is stated that the elections of the Board of Directors of respondent no.3 was Page 4 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER conducted in the month of June, 2014 and first meeting was held on 20.8.2014. The term of the said elected body is for a period of three years which would expire on 19.8.2017. It is pointed out that before conducting the elections of the Board of Directors i.e.Managing Committee of the respondent no.3-bank, elections of delegates and members of Shakha Samiti are to be conducted from the said delegates, election of Board of Directors district wise would be conducted. Hence, the election is three tier elections in three different phases and for conducting the entire election, normally at least six months time would be required.
3.5 It is stated that there is a legislative mandate to hold the elections prior to the expiry of the term and therefore in the present case, the term of the elected body expired on 19.8.2017, in spite of which election process has not been completed prior to the expiry of the term. The petitioners, therefore, preferred Special Civil Application No.9139 of 2017 seeking a direction to declare and hold elections of respondent no.3-bank and complete the same before expiry of the term of the present body. The said petition was disposed off by this Court by an order dated 5.5.2017 by giving direction to the Registrar and the Collector to take decision on Page 5 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER the representation submitted by the petitioner within stipulated time limit. In view of the said direction, the Registrar directed the respondent no.3-bank vide communication dated 19.5.2017 to prepare the voters list and provide the same to the competent authority and complete the election process before the expiry of the term. However, respondent no.3-bank intentionally delayed the process of holding the elections.
3.6 It is further stated in the petition that Section 74D of the Act came to be inserted by the state legislature in the year 2015 whereby it is provided that in respect of any society, the election of new Committee of management is not held before the expiry of the term of the members of the Committee, the Registrar shall appoint Custodian in said society. The petitioner further referred to the provisions contained in Section 74C (2)(iv) of the Act which was also introduced in the year 2015. The petitioners, therefore, prayed in the petition that respondent no.2-Registrar be directed to appoint Custodian in respondent no.3-bank in exercise of the powers under Section 74D of the Act.
3.7 As observed hereinabove, learned Single Judge allowed the said petition and directed the respondent no.2-Registrar to appoint Custodian in Page 6 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER the respondent no.3-bank. The respondent no.3- bank, therefore, preferred two appeals as stated hereinabove challenging the common order passed in Special Civil Application No.15732 of 2017 and 4683 of 2018 whereas the concerned directors filed appeal against the order passed in Special Civil Application No.15732 of 2017.
4. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Mihir Thakore assisted by learned advocate Mr.Archit Jani for the appellants-directors, learned advocate Mr.B.S.Patel assisted by learned advocate Mr.Chirag Patel for the appellant-bank, learned advocate Mr.Dipen Desai for the original petitioners, learned advocate Mr.V.C.Vaghela for the original petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Pathak for the respondent-State.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Thakore, at the outset, submitted that the election of the respondent-bank was held in August, 2014 and the concerned directors were appointed on 20.8.2014. As per the provisions contained in Section 74C(2) as was in existence in the year 2014, the members elected on the Committee at the general election shall hold office for a period of three years from the date on which the first meeting is held and they shall continue in office until Page 7 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER immediately before the first meeting of the members of the new Committee. It is submitted that Section 74C was amended with effect from 10.4.2015. Now the term of the members of the elected committee is of five years. Learned counsel has referred to the provisions contained in Section 74C(2) of the Act and more particularly referred to Clause (vi) thereof which provides that nothing in clause(i) shall be applicable to the Managing Committee existing on the date of coming into force of Gujarat Cooperative Societies (amendment) Act, 2015.
6. Learned senior counsel thereafter submitted that the respondent-bank and the directors started election process from 12.7.2017 as the term of the elected body was to expire on 19.8.2017. It is contended that the concerned persons filed proceedings before the Board of Nominees by filing Lavad suit wherein the Board of Nominees, Mehsana initially passed an order on 5.8.2017 restraining the bank from executing circular no.1 and 2 till 28.8.2017. However, when it was pointed out by the bank that the election process had already commenced, the Board of Nominees by an order dated 21.8.2017 rejected the said application Exh.6 filed by the concerned plaintiffs. The concerned plaintiffs, therefore preferred Revision Application No.124 of 2017 Page 8 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER before the Tribunal and the Tribunal passed an order on 31.8.2017 allowing the revision application and set aside the order dated 21.8.2017 passed by the Board of Nominees. Further direction was given by the Tribunal that circular nos.1 and 2 issued on 2.6.2017 be stayed till the pendency of the Lavad suit. The said order came to be challenged by the bank by filing petition being Special Civil Application No.17697 of 2017 before this Court. It is contended that the stay was in operation till this Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal on 3.5.2018 and therefore the provisions of Section 74D of the Act for appointment of Custodian would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the Registrar to appoint Custodian be set aside.
7. Learned advocate Mr.B.S.Patel appearing for the bank in the other two appeals supported the submission canvassed by learned senior counsel Mr.Thakore and he has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendrasinh Mafaji Vaghela V/s State of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No.16313 of 2015 and submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge Page 9 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER giving direction to the Registrar to appoint Custodian be quashed and set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Dipen Desai appearing for the original petitioners supported the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge and contended that the term of the elected body was over on 19.8.2017 and therefore in view of the provisions contained in Section 74C(2)(iv), the elected members of the Managing Committee and its office bearers shall cease to hold the office on the date of expiry of the term. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while placing reliance upon the said provision. Learned advocate Mr.Desai thereafter would submit that the appellant-bank started the election process only on 12.7.2017 and approximately 5 to 6 months are required for completing the said election process looking to the bye-laws of the bank. Thus, it was not possible for the bank to complete the election before 19.8.2017, the date on which the term of the members and Managing Committee was to expire. Therefore, it is not open for the bank and appellants-directors to take the advantage of the stay granted by the Board of Nominees and thereafter the Tribunal. Thus, in the facts of the present case, provisions contained in Section 74D is attracted Page 10 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER and therefore learned Single Judge has not committed any error while giving direction to the Registrar to appoint Custodian. Learned advocate Mr.Vaghela has also supported the submission canvassed by learned advocate Mr.Desai.
9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Pathak at the outset submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is already implemented and the Custodian is appointed. He has taken over the charge on 9.5.2018. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in giving direction to appoint Custodian in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is, therefore, urged that these appeals be dismissed.
10. Having considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it has emerged that the last election of the Board of Directors of the bank was conducted in the month of June, 2014 and the first meeting was held on 20.8.2014. The term was for a period of three years which would expire on 19.8.2017. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No.15732 of 2017 preferred Special Civil Application No.9139 of 2017 in which they sought direction that the Page 11 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER respondent-bank be directed to declare and hold the election and complete the same before the expiry of the term of the present body. This Court disposed off the said petition by order dated 5.5.2017 with a direction to the Registrar and Collector, Ahmedabad to take decision on the representation made by the petitioner. Registrar, therefore, directed to the bank to prepare the voters list and forward the same to the competent authority by its communication dated 19.5.2017. It is required to be noted that the bank issued various circulars. However, the election process was started only on 12.7.2017. The election even otherwise was not going to complete before 19.8.2017.
11. In the meantime, the concerned plaintiffs filed Lavad suit before the Board of Nominees wherein circular no.1 and circular no.2 issued by the bank was stayed. When the said stay was vacated, the concerned plaintiffs filed revision application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by an order dated 31.8.2017 granted stay till the disposal of the Lavad suit. The said order was challenged by the bank by filing the petition before this Court. In the aforesaid facts, relevant provisions of the Act are required to be examined.
12. Section 74C(2) which was in existence Page 12 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER prior to amendment of 10.4.2015 provided as under:
"(2) When the election of all the members of the committee of any such societies held at the same time, the members elected on the committee at such general election shall hold office for a period of three years from the date on which the first meeting is held and shall continue in office until immediately before the first meeting of the members of the new committee."
13. Legislature has amended Section 74C and the amendment came into effect from 10.4.2015. After the amendment, Section 74C(2) provides as under:
"74C(2)(i) The term of the elected members of the managing committee shall be five years from the date of election.
(ii) The term of office bearers of the managing committee shall be two and a half years from the date of election.
(iii) The managing committee shall fill up a casual vacancy within a period of sixty days from the date of such vacancy, failing which the State Government shall have the power to fill up such casual vacancy out of the same, class of categories of members in respect of which the casual vacancy has arisen if the remaining term of office of the managing committee is less than half of its original term.
(iv) The elected members of the managing committee and its office bearers shall cease to hold the office on the date of expiry of their term.
(v) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii), the office bearers of managing committee who have completed two and a half Page 13 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER years on the date of the commencement of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) A)ct, 2015, shall continue to be such office- bearer for the remainder term.
(vi) Nothing in clause (i) shall be applicable to the managing committee existing on the date of coming into force of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2015.
(vii) The office bearers of the managing committee shall be eligible for re-election."
14. From the aforesaid provisions, it can be said that now after the amendment of 2015, the term of the elected members of the Managing Committee shall be five years from the date of election. However, the said provision shall not be applicable to the Managing Committee existing on the date of coming into force of the Gujarat Act No.12 of 2015. However, it is required to be noted that clause(iv) of Section 74C(2) specifically provides that the elected members of the Managing Committee and its office bearers shall cease to hold the office on the date of expiry of the term. It is required to be noted that the term of the elected body of the bank has already expired on 19.8.2017 and the bank and its directors cannot place reliance upon the old provision contained in Section 74C(2) as it was prevailing prior to the amendment. It is clear from the record that the election process was started by the bank only on 12.7.2017 and it was otherwise also could not have been Page 14 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER over before expiry of the term of the elected body i.e. before 11.8.2017. Thus, the reliance placed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants about the stay granted by the Board of Nominees and thereafter the Tribunal as a result of which the election was not held is misconceived.
15. In the case of Virendrasinh (supra), the Division Bench has observed in paragraphs 49,50 and 51 as under:
"49. Let us now examine the later portion of Subsection (1) as well as Sub-section (2) of Section 7A of the GPMC Act, Section 8A of Municipalities Act and Section 257 of the Act. The later portion states that the State Government may appoint an officer as administrator to manage the affairs of the Municipal Corporation, Municipalities and or Panchayats, as the case may be by sub-section (2) in the aforesaid all sections, it has been provided that all powers and duties of the corporation or the municipalities or the Panchayats, as the case may be shall be exercised by the administrator. As we have examined, constitutional scheme of PartIX and IX-A for a term of Panchayats or the Municipalities, as the case may be and the holding of election and reconstitution of the Panchayats or the Municipalities or the Corporation, as the case may be prior to the expiry of its term are mandatory. It is true that by virtue of the language under Article 243E(1) and Article 243U(1) it is stated as five years from the date of first meeting and no longer. At the same time, in the very article it has been provided that the Page 15 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER election shall be held before the expiry of the duration specified in sub-article (1).
Further, as provided under Article 243N read with the Article 243ZF no law can be made by the State Legislature, inconsistent with the provisions of the Part IX and IX-A of the Constitution. Hence, it can be said that the concept of appointment of administrator is unknown to the constitutional scheme of Part IX and IX-A and the constitutional scheme provides under Part IX and IX-A for elected body of the Panchayats, Municipalities or the Corporations, as the case may be to be substituted by another elected body of Panchayats or the Municipalities or the Corporations, as the case may be. There is no room at all left for appointment of administrator. Consequently, there would be no room left for performance of the power of the panchayats or the municipalities or the corporations, as the case may be, by such officer, who may be appointed as administrator. It is hardly required to be stated that the appointment of administrator in place of the elected body even otherwise also would be against the spirit of the constitution as reflected from Part-IX and IX-A of the constitution. In the above referred decision of this Court in the case of Rasikchandra Devshanker Acharya & Ors. (supra), in the object and reasons of the constitutional amendment bill were extracted, the same for ready reference are available from paragraphs 9 to 12 as under:-
9. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution Amendment Bill regarding the Panchayati Raj Institutions, it was stated that in the light of the experience in the last forty years and in view of the shortcomings which had been observed:
"...it is considered that there is an imperative need to enshrine in the Constitution certain basic and essential Page 16 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER features of Panchayati Raj Institutions to impart certainty, continuity and strength to them...."
The main features of the Amendment Bill were mentioned which, inter alia, provided for constitution of the Panchayats at the village and intermediate levels, the duration of the Panchayat and the reservation of seats, etc.
10. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Constitutional Amendment Bill relating to urban local bodies it was, inter alia, stated that:
"In many States local bodies have become weak and ineffective on account of variety of reasons, including the failure to hold regular elections, prolonged supersessions and inadequate devolution of powers and functions. As a result, urban local bodies are not able to perform effectively as vibrant democratic units of self Government.
2. Having regard to these inadequacies, it is considered necessary that provisions relating to urban local bodies are incorporated in the Constitution particularly for
(i) putting on a firmer footing the relationship between the State Government and the Urban Local Bodies with respect to
(a) the functions and taxation powers; and
(b) arrangements for revenue sharing; (ii) ensuring regular conduct of elections;
(iii) ensuring timely elections in the case of supersession; and
(iv)providing adequate representation for me weaker sections like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women."
11. The aforesaid two Bills were then referred to the Joint Committee of two Houses of Parliament in December, 1991. On receipt of the report of the Joint Committee, the Constitution Amendment Bill, as reiterated by the Joint Committee, was again moved in the Page 17 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER Lok Sabha by the then Minister of State in the Ministry of Rural Development. While introducing the Bill, the Honourable Minister referred to effort being made by some States for providing wideranging delegation of powers and authority down to the District and Intermediate level. But it was noted that in the case of most of the States the record as far as Panchayati Raj Institutions were concerned was not very good.
12. A similar statement was made by the Honourable Minister for Urban Development while moving the Constitutional Amendment Bill relating to the urban local bodies. It was, inter alia, stated by the Minister in his speech:
"...Having regard to the present inadequacies and with a view to restore the rightful place in political governance for urban local bodies, it is considered necessary that they should be provided a Constitutional status and necessary provisions made to
(a) ensure regular and fair conduct of elections; (b) ensure term of five years for elected urban local bodies and election within six months, in cases of supersession;
(c) provide for specific representation for women and the Scheduled Castes and Tribes;
(d) provide for devolution of functions and powers to municipalities; and
(e) provide for constitution of State Finance Commission every five years to ensure regular devolution of resources to local bodies. The Constitution Amendment Bill which is before you for your consideration constitutes but the first stage of a process. Once these Bills are enacted, we must carry this process forward by ensuring appropriate amendments to State legislations and thereafter ensuring effective executive implementation...."
The said Amendment Bills were passed by both the Houses of Parliament and the SeventyThird Amendment came into force from 24th April, Page 18 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER 1993 while SeventyFourth Amendment came into force from 1st June, 1993. (Emphasis supplied)
50. The aforesaid read with other observations reproduced earlier of paragraph 43 of the said decision show that one of the major intentions of bringing about the insertion of the Part IX and IX-A of the Constitution was to ensure regular conduct of the election but nowhere in the object clause there is reference to any leave way for appointment of the administrator on account of the delay in conduct of the election. In the case of Kishansingh Tomar (supra) the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court, at paragraph 21 even in respect of exceptional circumstances, resulting into the delay of election, it was, inter alia, observed thus:-
"21. It is true that there may be certain manmade calamities, such as rioting or breakdown of law and order, or natural calamities which could distract the authorities from holding elections to the Municipality, but they are exceptional circumstances and under no circumstance the Election Commission would be justified in delaying the process of election after consulting the State Govt. and other authorities. But that should be an exceptional circumstance and shall not be a regular feature to extend the duration of the Municipality. Going by the provisions contained in Article 243U, it is clear that the period of five years fixed thereunder to constitute the Municipality is mandatory in nature and has to be followed in all respects. It is only when the Municipality is dissolved for any other reason and the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any elections for Page 19 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER constituting the Municipality for such period." (Emphasis supplied)
51. Apart from the above, even if the principles as contended by the learned Advocate General are considered for the sake of examination that the constitution is a living organ and the doctrine of silence would apply and that for act of God or the circumstance beyond the control of man or human being, the mandatory provision would not result into directory, then also in light of the above referred observations of the Apex Court in the case of Kishansingh Tomar (supra) and more particularly paragraph 21, which is pressed in service, even by the State, no room would be left for appointment of the administrator, but such circumstances may result into extension of term of the local body, may be Panchayat, may be Municipality or may be Corporation, since it is only on account of the circumstances beyond the control like act of God or for circumstances, on account of which it is impossible to hold election. In any case, reading the power for appointment of the administrator and thereby to capture power by executive fiat, resulting to oust elected body or making any statute for appointment of the administration by the State legislature on account of the delay caused for holding of election is unknown and not conceived by the constitution and more particularly when Part IX and IX-A mandates with its full spirit to substitute an out-
going elected body by incoming new elected body and does not conceive entrustment of such power of elected body to any administrator or any officer, who may be appointed by a law made by the State Legislation. At this stage two aspect need to be recorded. One is that the observation made by this Court in case of Rasikchandra Devshanker Acharya & Ors. (supra) for Page 20 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER appointment of administrator would be no more a good law since the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case of Kishansingh Tomar (supra) at paragraph 21 expressly observed for extension of the term of the Municipalities if due to exceptional circumstances the election cannot be held. Further doctrine of silence can equally apply for extension of the term of elected body. Secondly, in any case, on the same analogy as canvassed for act of God or riot or natural calamity, the mandatory character of the language used under Article 243E(1) and Article 243U(1) for "No longer" would not be rendered directory."
16. We cannot dispute the aforesaid provision of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said decision would not render any assistance to the appellants. It is required to be noted that the amended provisions contained in Section 74C and Section 74D are not under challenge.
17. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge and we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while giving direction to the Registrar to appoint Custodian. It is required to be noted that the said direction is already implemented and the Custodian is appointed and he has taken over the charge on 9.5.2018.
Page 21 of 22 C/LPA/584/2018 ORDER18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) SRILATHA Page 22 of 22