Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management, Moradabad ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 25 February, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2008(2)AWC1505
Bench: Anjani Kumar, Rakesh Sharma
ORDER
Anjani Kumar and Rakesh Sharma, JJ.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ayyub Khan for the contesting respondent.
2. The petitioners have challenged the meeting of the Committee of Management scheduled pursuant to the notice issued by the specified authority under Rule 458 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 wherein a notice has been issued by the specified authority dated 21 October, 20C7 inviting all the members of the Committee of Management to be present in the meeting scheduled for 11th November, 2007 at 12.30 in the office of Collector, Moradabad for consideration of motion of no-confidence against the petitioner No. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that from the perusal of the aforesaid notice (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) it is apparent that the said notice has been issued by the Presiding Officer nominated by the specified authority on 21st October, 2007 and the meeting is fixed on 11th November, 2007.
3. Learned Counsel submits that intervening period between 21st October, 2007 and 11th November, 2007 do not come to 21 days while calculating this period by excluding the date of issue of notice and date of holding of the meeting as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kunwar Hari Raj Singh v. District Magistrate, Bljnor and Ors. which is quoted below:
8. It would be proper to mention a ruling of this Court in Yadu Nath Pandey v. District Panchayat Raj Officer District Ballia 1986 All LJ 1456, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has observed in para 5 of the aforesaid ruling as below:
In Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Eleventh Edition, page 340, the significance of the words "at least" was considered and it was said:
Again, when so many "clear days", or so many days "at least", are given to do an act, or "not less than" so many days are to intervene, both the terminal days are excluded from the computation.
4. In this view of the matter it is also necessary to examine Rule 458 of Co-operative Societies Rules which is quoted below:
458. (1) On receipt of the notice of no-confidence as provided in Rules 456 and 457, the specified authority shall fix such time, date and place as, he may consider suitable for holding a meeting for the purposes of consideration of the proposal of no-confidence motion:
Provided that such meeting shall be held within thirty five days of the receipt of the notice of no-confidence:
Provided further that at least twenty one days' notice shall be-given for holding such meeting.
5. From the above it is clear that there is no clear 21 days' intervening between 21st October, 2007 and 11th November, 2007. In these circumstances in our opinion this notice deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.