# Brijesh Kumar Singh & Ors v. The Central Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, New Delhi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 935
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-31
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 8913 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brijesh-kumar-singh-ors-v-the-central-registrar-co-operative-societies-new-50658
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Civil Law-The Constitution of India-1950Article 226 - The Multi-St. Co-operative
Societies Act, 2002-Section 44(2) & 85 -
The Multi-St. Co-operative Societies Rules,
2002-Rule 19(1)--- No member of a board
shall be eligible to be elected as the Chairperson
or President of a Multi St. Co-operative Society,
after he has held the office during two
consecutive terms, whether full or part. While
deciding the complaint of the petitioners by the
Central Registrar on 28.05.2019 it was held that
the first petitioner was not eligible for being
elected as per provisions contained under
Section 44 (2) of the Act, 2002. So far as the
said observation is concerned, till date the same
is not upset by any competent court and
therefore, the same has attained finality. It is
admitted position of the parties that the first
petitioner was elected third time as Chairman in
the year 2015. Moreover, 'no confidence motion'
was acted upon. Admittedly, the first petitioner
has not discharged any work as Chairman of the
Bank since 2017 to 2020. The Board of
Directors, who were elected on 31.07.2015, had
to complete its term of 05 years upto
31.07.2020. The Board of Directors of the
Cooperative Bank had convened the meeting on
25.10.2019 in which the Returning Officer was
appointed to conduct the election, which was
also communicated through registered post on
04.11.2019 to the Central Registrar. The fresh
election took place and the new Board was
constituted on 19.02.2020, wherein 11 Directors
including the Chairman and Vice Chairman were
elected. The new Board is discharging its duties
with effect from 19.02.2020. Considering the
fact, that the said election was never challenged
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the limitation period as provided under
Section 85 of the Act, 2002 and therefore, for all
practical purpose, the election, which took place
on 18.02.2020 and 19.02.2020, has attained
finality--- In case there is any vacuum or
Cooperative Board fails to conduct the election
of the members of the Board, the Central
Registrar is empowered to hold the election
within the period of 90 days from the date when
such election became due, as per Section 45 (6)
of the Act, 2002. Moreover, Rule 19 (1) of the
Rules, 2002 also provides that the election of
members of the board shall be conducted by the
returning officer appointed by the board in its
meeting. (Para 40 & 41)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,917 of 94,606. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39917 for what follows._

7 All. Brijesh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The Central Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, New Delhi
 & Ors.
935
recorded based on DW-3's testimony in the
defendant's favour. The Lower Appellate
Court has not reversed that finding by the
Trial Court in the defendant's favour.
Rather, the Lower Appellate Court has
ignored from consideration the testimony
of Dashrath @ Majhle, DW-3 holding that
this witness was never produced by the
defendant. Therefore, in the opinion of this
Court, it has to be held that the findings
recorded by the Lower Appellate Court are
ones that set aside the findings recorded by
the Trial Court upon the most crucial issue
without consideration of the most material
evidence on record. For the said reason
alone, in the opinion of this Court, the
judgment of reversal written by the Lower
Appellate Court cannot be sustained.

64. Substantial Question of Law No.3
is answered in the negative holding that
the Lower Appellate Court has not set
aside the findings recorded by the Trial
Court upon consideration of the evidence
on record while reversing the Trial
Court's judgment.

65. In view of the conclusions
recorded above, this appeal succeeds and is
allowed with costs throughout. The decree
passed by the Lower Appellate Court is set
aside and that of the Trial Court restored.

66. Let a decree be drawn up,
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 935
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
Writ-C No. 8913 of 2021

Brijesh Kumar Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The
Central
Registrar,
Co-Operative
Societies, New Delhi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Balwant Singh, Sri Umesh Vats

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, Sri Kartikeya
Saran, Sri Krishna Ji Shukla, Sri Narendra Kumar
Chatterjee, Sri H.N. Singh(Sr. Advocate)

Civil Law-The Constitution of India-1950Article 226 - The Multi-St. Co-operative
Societies Act, 2002-Section 44(2) & 85 -
The Multi-St. Co-operative Societies Rules,
2002-Rule 19(1)--- No member of a board
shall be eligible to be elected as the Chairperson
or President of a Multi St. Co-operative Society,
after he has held the office during two
consecutive terms, whether full or part. While
deciding the complaint of the petitioners by the
Central Registrar on 28.05.2019 it was held that
the first petitioner was not eligible for being
elected as per provisions contained under
Section 44 (2) of the Act, 2002. So far as the
said observation is concerned, till date the same
is not upset by any competent court and
therefore, the same has attained finality. It is
admitted position of the parties that the first
petitioner was elected third time as Chairman in
the year 2015. Moreover, 'no confidence motion'
was acted upon. Admittedly, the first petitioner
has not discharged any work as Chairman of the
Bank since 2017 to 2020. The Board of
Directors, who were elected on 31.07.2015, had
to complete its term of 05 years upto
31.07.2020. The Board of Directors of the
Cooperative Bank had convened the meeting on
25.10.2019 in which the Returning Officer was
appointed to conduct the election, which was
also communicated through registered post on
04.11.2019 to the Central Registrar. The fresh
election took place and the new Board was
constituted on 19.02.2020, wherein 11 Directors
including the Chairman and Vice Chairman were
elected. The new Board is discharging its duties
with effect from 19.02.2020. Considering the
fact, that the said election was never challenged
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the limitation period as provided under
Section 85 of the Act, 2002 and therefore, for all
practical purpose, the election, which took place
on 18.02.2020 and 19.02.2020, has attained
finality--- In case there is any vacuum or
Cooperative Board fails to conduct the election
of the members of the Board, the Central
Registrar is empowered to hold the election
within the period of 90 days from the date when
such election became due, as per Section 45 (6)
of the Act, 2002. Moreover, Rule 19 (1) of the
Rules, 2002 also provides that the election of
members of the board shall be conducted by the
returning officer appointed by the board in its
meeting. (Para 40 & 41)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ranjit Bose & ors Vs E & N F Railway Credit)
decided on 25.2.2009 A.S.T. No.91 of 2008
Calcutta High Court

2. Vikas Trivedi & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2013
(8) ADJ 523 (FB)

3. Jyoti Kumar Malviya Vs Indian Farmers
Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. & ors. 2006 (3) ADJ
383

4. Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs St. of U.P.
& ors. 2020(12) ADJ 461 (DB)

5. Sushil Kumar Vs Central Registrar of Coop.
Society & ors. Delhi High Court in W.P. (C)
No.2059/2021

6. Madan Mohan Vs St. AIR 1966 Calcutta 23

7. P.B.K. Rajachidambaram Vs R.P. Rathana
Sharma AIR 1967 Madras 182

8. Praga Tools Vs Imanual (1969) 1 SCC 585

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J. & Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Umesh Vats and Mr.
Balwant Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners; Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Atul Kumar
Shahi, learned counsel for respondent no.2
and Mr. Krishna Ji Shukla, Advocate,
holding brief of Mr. N.K. Chatterjee,
learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioners have sought following
reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding and
directing to the Central Registrar, Cooperative
Societies,
Department
of
Agriculture and Co-operative, Government
of India, New Delhi to take appropriate
decision on the matter of the petitioners and
appoint returning officer to hold the
election of the bank (North Eastern & East
Central Railway Employees' Multi - State
Primary
Co-operative
Bank
Limited,
Gorakhpur).

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing to the
Central Registrar (respondent no.1) to send
report to the Reserve Bank of India
regarding the expiration of the terms of the
general body as well as Board of Directors
of the Bank to the Reserve Bank of India
(respondent no.4).

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding and
directing to the Reserve Bank of India to
take appropriate decision to supersede the
Board of Directors i.e. North Eastern &
East Central Railway Employees' Multi -
State Primary Co-operative Bank Limited,
Gorakhpur and administrator upon.

iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the suitable nature which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper under the
circumstances of the case.
v). Award the cost of the writ petition to the
petitioners."
7 All. Brijesh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The Central Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, New Delhi
 & Ors.
937

3. By means of an amendment
application, which was allowed by this
Court on 27.03.2023, further relief was
added:-

"i-A) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
elections dated 08.01.2020, 18.02.2020 and
19.02.2020 held by the respondent nos.2 &
3."

4. The brief facts of the case are that
"North Eastern & East Central Railway
Employees
Multi
State
Primary
Cooperative Bank Limited, Gorakhpur"1 is a
Co-operative
Society,
which
was
established in the year 1921 and initially
registered under the Cooperative Societies
Act, 19122. Subsequently, it was brought
under the provisions of "Multi State
Cooperative Societies Act, 1942" for
extending the objects of the Society.
Thereafter,
"Multi
State
Cooperative
Societies Act, 1984"3 was enacted for
incorporation, regulation and winding up of
Multi State Cooperative Societies. Since,
the area of operation of the said Society is
more than one State and therefore, it was
also registered under the provisions of the
Act, 1984. Later on, the Act, 1984 was
amended and "Multi-State Co-operative
Societies Act, 2002"4 was enacted. The
Society was again registered under the
provisions of Act, 2002. The Society has its
own registered bye-laws. It does not
receive
any
fund
from
the
State
Government or Central Government. The
bank is running and functioning according
to the provisions of the Act, 2002 and the
provisions of Multi-State Co-operative
Societies Rules, 20025.

5. It also appears from the record that
the terms of delegates, members and office
bearers of the Board are five years. Once
the term of the general body of the Bank
was going to expire in the month of August,
2015 then the Board of Directors of the
Bank had proceeded to pass a resolution on
10.04.2015 for holding a meeting of the
general body of the bank as well as the
board of the bank. The said resolution was
duly intimated to the Central Registrar on
30.04.2015. The election programme was
notified on 11.05.2015 and the election of
the general body/delegates was held and
the result was declared on 26.06.2015,
wherein 250 delegates from 11 departments
were
elected. The
Returning
Officer
notified the election of the members of the
board and office bearers on 29.06.2015 and
the same was duly informed to the Central
Registrar on 30.06.2015. The election of
the members of the board was held in the
general meeting of the bank on 30.07.2015
and the election of Chairman and Vice
Chairman of the bank was held on
31.07.2015, wherein, the first petitioner
was elected as Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the Bank.

6. Meanwhile, out of nine, six
Directors of the bank prepared the alleged
resolution dated 27.09.2018, wherein, the
first petitioner was removed from the office
of the Chairman on the 'no confidence
motion' brought by Rajesh Kumar Singh,
Director. The petitioners had challenged the
aforesaid resolution in Writ C No.42730 of
20186 which was disposed of by a
coordinate Bench of this Court with
following observations:-

"We have heard Sri P.N. Saxena,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Amit Saxena for the petitioners; Sri
Balwant Singh for respondents 3 to 9.

After
some
arguments,
Sri
P.N.
Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for the petitioners, has confined his
arguments in respect of the second prayer
made in the petition which is for a direction
upon the Central Registrar of Cooperative
Societies, Department of Agriculture and
Cooperation, Government of India, New
Delhi to take a decision on the reference
petition of the petitioners filed under
Section 84 of the Multi- State Cooperative
Societies Act, 2002.

According to the petitioners a forged
and fabricated Resolution No. 25 dated
27.9.2018 has been set up to disclose that
the petitioner no. 1 (Brajesh Kumar Singh)
had abused his position as Sabhapati of the
Board and, therefore, by a resolution has
been removed from office.

It has been submitted that the said
resolution is in the teeth of the proviso to
Section 47 of the Multi-State Cooperative
Societies Act, 2002 as no opportunity was
given to the petitioner no. 1 to make a
representation on the allegations and
otherwise also the resolution has not been
passed by requisite strength as is required
by law. It is also stated that there was no
agenda for consideration of any such
resolution.

He prays that since the reference
application has already been filed under
Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative
Societies Act, 2002 a direction may be
issued upon the first respondent (The
Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Cooperation, Government of India, New
Delhi) to take a decision within a specified
period.

Considering the nature of the dispute
as also the prayer made, we deem
appropriate to dispose off the writ petition
with a direction upon the respondent no. 1
to ensure expeditious decision on the
reference
petition
of
the
petitioners,
preferably, within a period of two months
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.

It is made clear that this court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the
claim and, before taking decision, the first
respondent shall provide opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned."

7. In pursuance of the aforesaid order
dated 20.12.2018, the Central Registrar had
refused to refer the matter under Section 84
of the Act, 2002 on 28.05.2019. The said
order was again assailed by the petitioners
in Writ C No.29112 of 20197 in which
notices were issued to the respondents on
16.9.2019 and they were directed to file
counter affidavit in the matter. Again the
petitioners made a complaint before the
Central Registrar on 23.03.2019 stating,
therein, that six Directors, whose names are
mentioned in paragraph-15 of the writ
petition, are not informing the petitioners
about the meeting of the Board of
Directors. Again the petitioners alongwith
57 delegates/members of the general body
made a complaint under Section 78 of the
Act, 2002 before the Central Registrar on
10.04.2019,
alleging
number
of
irregularities being committed by the
present management of the bank and
sought a detailed enquiry. Again the first
petitioner alongwith Ashok Kumar Pandey
had approached this Court by preferring
Writ C No.38998 of 2019 and a Division
Bench of this Court had proceeded to
dispose of the writ petition on 13.1.2020,
with following observations:-

"Heard Shri Amit Saxena, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Balwant
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the
respondents.

The petitioners claim that they are
members of the Board of the Society and
7 All. Brijesh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The Central Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, New Delhi
 & Ors.
939
that they have moved an application before
the Central Registrar under Section 78 of
the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act,
2002, for an enquiry into the affairs of the
Society and that the same be directed to be
considered and decided by the Central
Registrar.

Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the
respondents, contends that the petitioners
have
no
locus
to
make
any
such
application.

Since the petitioners have invoked the
powers under Section 78 of the Act, 2002,
it is incumbent upon the Central Registrar
to consider the application in that regard
though in considering the same, he may
also Rule with regard to the maintainability
of the application as well as the locus of the
petitioners in filing the same.

In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition
with the direction to the Central Registrar to
consider the above application of the
petitioner filed under Section 78 of the Act,
2002, in accordance with law and in so
considering it may decide the locus of the
petitioners as well as the maintainability of
the
writ
petition
after
giving
proper
opportunity of hearing to all concerned
parties most expeditiously preferably within a
period of six weeks from the date of
submission of copy of this order before him.

In view of the above, the writ petition
stands disposed of."

8. In pursuance of the said order dated
13.1.2020,
the
Central
Registrar
of
Cooperative Societies heard both the
parties and passed an order on 02.03.2020
for holding the enquiry into the matter. The
order dated 02.3.2020 is reproduced
hereinafter:-

"1.
Complainant
had
approached
Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad for a
direction to this authority regarding inquiry
under Section 78 of the MSCS Act, 2002 in
the NE & EC Railway Employees Primary
Cooperative
Bank
Limited,
Gorakhpur
(hereinafter referred to as bank). The
complainant
had
alleged
number
of
irregularities being committed by the current
management of the bank with regard to
which they had sought a detailed inquiry. The
Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated
13.01.2020 had directed this authority to
consider the application with regard to
maintainability as well as locus of the
petitioner/complainants. This authority has
also been directed to consider the application
of petition/complaint filed under Section 78
of the Act in accordance with law.

2. All the concerned parties were
issued a notice in compliance of direction
of Hon'ble High Court. The complainants
have
submitted
that
the
current
management of the bank has committed a
series of irregularities which are serious in
nature and require a detailed inquiry. It has
also been submitted that as per Section 78
of MSCS Act, 2002, 1/3rd of the total
number of Directors may require an inquiry
to be conducted by the Central Registrar or
an officer nominated by him to inquire into
any
complaint
regarding
constitution,
working and financial condition from Multi
State Cooperative Society. There are 9
Directors of the bank which are currently
part of the Board and they are three
Directors, therefore, they have locus standi
to request for an inquiry.

3. The respondents represented by the
current Chairperson and Secretary of the
Society submitted that the complainants
have
not
attended
three
consecutive
meetings of the Board in spite of notice
thereby incurred disqualification under
Section 43 (m) of the Act and therefore,
they do not have the locus standi to file a
complaint under Section 78 of the Act.
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. After hearing both the parties, this
authority enquired about the process of
notice which was issued giving intimation
of the date and place of the Board meetings
to all the members of the Board. After
going through the papers shown by the
respondents and the notices that are
purported to be issued, it is evident that due
process has not been followed, therefore,
the question of incurring disqualification
for absence from these meetings does not
hold ground. Therefore, the argument of
disqualification is rejected. Since, out of 9
existing members of the Board, three have
made an allegation of inquiry into affairs of
the bank. Therefore, this authority comes to
the conclusion that inquiry under Section
78 can be ordered.

5. The
allegation
made
in
the
complaint
alongwith
the
relevant
documents
be
sent
to
Divisional
Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division for
conducting inquiry within a period of 90
days of this order. Both the parties shall
remain
present
before
Commissioner,
Gorakhpur Division on 18.3.2020."

9. In pursuance of the order of Central
Registrar dated 02.03.2020 the first petitioner
and Ashok Kumar Pandey appeared before the
Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur
on 18.03.2020. The next election of the general
body as well as Board of Directors of the bank
was due in the year 2020 and the election
process was to be commenced in April-May,
2020. On 08.01.2020 the delegates for forming
the general body were elected and the election
of Board of Directors as per the election
schedule was held on 18.2.2020 and the
Chairman and Vice Chairman was held on
19.02.2020, which have been subsequently
challenged in the aforesaid writ petition.

10. Mr. Umesh Vats, learned counsel
for the petitioners vehemently submitted
that the Bank is a registered cooperative
society under the provisions of the Act,
2002. The affairs of the Bank is to be run
and managed strictly in consonance with
the provisions as contained under the Act,
2002 and the by-laws framed thereunder.
The strength of the general body of the
bank, who participate in the election for
electing the delegates, is more than 50,000
and they are working in three States namely
Uttrakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The
petitioner nos.1 and 2 claimed to be
members of Board of Directors, which was
constituted on 31.07.2015 for a period of
five years. On 23.10.2018 the Acting
Secretary of the Bank informed to the first
petitioner
that
by
resolution
dated
27.09.2018 he had been removed from the
office of Chairman of the Board of
Directors on the 'no confidence motion'
brought by Rajesh Kumar Singh, Director
and Sri Anurag Khare, Vice President has
been
appointed
as
the
acting
Chairman/President.
The
petitioners
questioned
the
validity
of
the
said
resolution in Writ C No.42730 of 2018,
alleging therein that a forged and fabricated
Resolution No.25 dated 27.9.2018 was
mooted just to dislodge the first petitioner
as Chairman of the Society and the said
resolution was in teeth of provisions
contained under Section 47 of the Act,
2002. The relief was confined to the extent
that since the reference application has
already been filed under Section 84 of the
Act, 2002, a direction may be issued to the
Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies
to take a decision within stipulated time.
The Division Bench without touching the
merits of the case had disposed of the writ
petition with direction to the respondent i.e.
Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies
to decide the said reference. In response to
the said decision the Central Registrar had
refused to refer the matter under Section 84
7 All. Brijesh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The Central Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, New Delhi
 & Ors.
941
of the Act, 2002 vide his order dated
28.5.2019.

11. In this backdrop, Mr. Vats, learned
counsel for the petitioners has vehemently
submitted that the intention of six Directors
and acting Secretary was to grab the
property of the bank and therefore, in order
to grab the property in question they
prepared forged and fabricated proceeding
for dislodging the first petitioner. Again the
petitioners moved a representation on
23.3.2019 to the Central Registrar of
Cooperative Societies for making an
enquiry under Section 78 of the Act, 2002.
It is also claimed that more 30% delegates
of the bank had also made similar request
on 10.4.2019. Again they filed Writ C
No.38998 of 2019, which was disposed of
by the Division Bench on 13.1.2020 with
direction to the Central Registrar to
consider the application of the petitioners
with regard to maintainability as well as
locus of the petitioners/complainants. In
pursuance of the aforesaid order, the
Central Registrar has decided the matter in
favour of the petitioners on 02.03.2020 for
holding an inquiry.

12. Mr. Vats submitted that a person is
elected as a Chairman or Vice Chairman for
a particular term, which cannot be curtailed
by illegal resolution/no confidence motion.
The Board of Director and office bearers
are elected by the procedure prescribed
under the Act, 2002 read with the Rules,
2002 and the Bye-laws framed thereunder,
and which guaranteed a tenure of five
years, which is prescribed in Section 35 (d)
of the bye-laws. No procedure is prescribed
in the Act, 2002, Rules, 2002 and bye-laws
of
the
Bank
for
removing
the
President/Chairman of the Board of the
Director of the Bank by way of 'no
confidence
motion'.
The
alleged
resolution/no confidence motion is in
breach of proviso to Section 47 of the Act,
2002 as no opportunity was given to the
first petitioner to move a representation
against the alleged resolution. Neither any
charge was levelled against the first
petitioner nor any specific reason has been
given in the 'no confidence motion', which
indicated malafide intention of the six
Directors namely Anurag Khare, Rajesh
Kumar Singh, Afroz, Rama Shankar Singh,
Arvind
Chand
and
Manoj
Kumar
Vishwakarma. It was submitted that the
bank has more than 50,000 shareholders
and near about 250 working employees.
The capital of the bank is more than Rs.200
crores.

13. It has been submitted before us
that the term of the Board of Directors of
the Bank has been expired and no election
for constituting the general body of the
Bank as well as the Directors of the bank
has
been
held.
In
the
aforesaid
circumstances, the Central Registrar is
required to appoint the Returning Officer to
hold the election for constituting the
general body as well as the Board of
Directors. It is further required to send a
report to the Reserve Bank of India for
exercising its powers under Section 56 of
the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to
supersede the Board of Directors of the
Bank and appoint an Administrator in the
Bank. The bank also holds a Banking
licence issued by the Reserve Bank of India
and is also governed by the Banking
Regulations Act, 1949 (As applicable to
Co-operative Societies). Section 36AA of
the
Banking
Regulations
Act,
1949
provides that where the Reserve Bank is
satisfied that in the public interest or for
preventing the affairs of a banking
company being conducted in a manner
detrimental to the interests of the depositors
942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or for securing the proper management of
any banking company, it is necessary so to
do, the Reserve Bank may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing by order, remove the
Board of Directors of such Multi State
Cooperative Bank from office for a period
not exceeding five years, as may be
specified in the order, which may be
extended from time to time, so, however,
that total period shall not exceed five years.

14. Learned Advocate for the
petitioners submitted that as per Schedule-I
of Rules, 2002 the Board of Directors in
office shall meet atleast 60 clear dates in
advance of the date of expiration of its term
and by resolution determine the date, time
and place for convening a general body
meeting for conducting the election. This
provision will also apply mutatis mutandis
to such Multi State Cooperative Society as
are under the charge of the Administrator
appointed under sub-section (1) of Section
130. The Board of Directors in this meeting
shall also appoint a Returning Officer but
the
alleged
election
was
held
on
08.01.2020, which is in gross violation of
the Rules, 2002. Schedule-1 of the Rules,
2002 further states that a copy of the
decision shall forthwith be sent to the
Central Registrar but in the present case, no
such information was sent to the Central
Registrar, which is also evident from the
reply given by the office of Central
Registrar to Mr. A.K. Singh under the Right
to Information Act, 2005. The said
Schedule further states that the Society
shall immediately forward such report and
return of the result furnished by the
Returning Officer to the Central Registrar
but the said provision has not been
followed. Schedule I (f) further says that
the notice of the general body meeting shall
be sent to the members by any of the modes
i.e. by local delivery or under postal
certificate
or
by
publication
in
the
newspaper having wide circulation but the
members of the general body of the Society
were not informed by any mode. Further
the Circular dated 27.12.2019 issued by the
Central Registrar clearly provides that the
Board of the Multi State Cooperative
Societies/Banks may appoint the Returning
Officer for conducting the elections of the
Societies from the panel of serving officers
mentioned in the said Circular but the said
procedure has not been followed.

15.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners further submitted that the Rules,
2002 provides that every decision of the
Board of Directors qua election and
election result will be communicated from
time to time to the Central Registrar.
Schedule-I of the Rules, 2002 deals with
the procedures for notification and holding
of election. The election programme will be
published in daily newspapers, which has
wide circulation but in the present matter,
the said procedure has not been followed.
The
petitioners
have
made
several
representations before the Central Registrar
regarding appointment of the Returning
Officer for holding the election of the Bank
but till date, the same has not been decided.
The
alleged
resolution/no
confidence
motion is in breach of proviso to Section 47
of the Act, 2002 as no opportunity was
given to him to make a representation on
the said allegation. Neither any charge was
levelled against him nor any specific reason
has been given in the no confidence
motion, which indicated malafide intention
of the aforesaid six Directors.

16. In support of his submission, he
has placed reliance on the judgment of
Calcutta High Court in A.S.T. No.91 of
20088, wherein, the appellant Ranjit Bose
(since deceased), who was respondent no.4
7 All. Brijesh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The Central Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, New Delhi
 & Ors.
943
in the said writ, filed the appeal, which was
registered as AST 91 of 2008, challenging
the interim order dated 14th February, 2008
passed in W. P. No.334 (W) of 2008. In the
said writ petition, the petitioners had
questioned the validity of the order of the
Chief Director (Co-operative) in the office
of the Central Registrar of Co-operative
Societies,
dated
December
31,
2007
directing
the
Chairman of
the
first
petitioner,
which
is
Multi-State
Cooperative
Society,
governed
by
the
provisions of the Act, 2002, not to appoint
any employee in the co-operative society
during the progress of the election process.
Finally, a Division Bench of Calcutta High
Court had proceeded to allow the said
appeal and set aside the interim orders
passed by the learned Trial Judge.

17. On the other hand, Mr. H.N.
Singh,
learned
Senior
Counsel
for
respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the
writ petition and submitted that Sunil
Kumar Singh is presently posted as
Secretary of the Bank. The terms of
delegates, members of Board of the Bank
and office bearers of Board are five years.
The first petitioner was elected as the
Chairman of the Bank for the first time
from 2008 to 2010 and thereafter, he was
elected as Chairman for the second time
from 2010 to 2015. Again the election of
the members of the board was held on
30.07.2015 and the election of Chairman
and
Vice
Chairman
was
held
on
31.07.2015, wherein the first petitioner was
elected as member of the board for the third
time, which was against Section 44 (2) of
the Act, 2002. Eventually, he was removed
on
the
'no
confidence
motion'
on
27.09.2018.

18. It was also submitted that before
the board meeting on 27.9.2018, there were
26 proposals under the agenda items, out of
which 19 were approved and 07 were
rejected. During the said board meeting, 24
proposals
were
passed
by
the
first
petitioner. However, one of the Director
namely Rajesh Kumar Singh introduced the
'no confidence motion' against the first
petitioner (Proposal No.25) and after
placing
the
said
proposal,
the
first
petitioner walked out of the meeting and
refused to sign the minutes of the said
proposal. On the proposal no.25, out of 09
members of the Board, 06 favoured; 01
member casted vote against the said
proposal and 01 member was absent. In this
backdrop, it is submitted that as per the
bye-laws no.33 the members of the board
may elect the Chairman and Vice Chairman
by majority vote. Under the democratic set
up once they can elect the Chairman and
Vice Chairman by majority vote then they
may also have their rights to remove them
by majority and accordingly, the resolution
was passed. In the aforesaid meeting, it was
decided to hold the fresh election of the
Board of Co-operative Bank. For that
purpose, a meeting of the Board was held
on 25.10.2019 in which one Ravi Kumar
Singh was appointed as an Election Officer
for conducting the election. By the same
resolution, the date of publication of
tentative voter list, inviting objection,
finalization of the list and other schedule of
election was finalised. The Secretary of the
Bank, who is working as Chief Executive
Officer and a paid employee of the
Bank/Society, sent the information of
appointment of the election officer to the
Central Registrar on 04.11.2019.

19. It was contended that the
Returning Officer had sent a letter on
29.10.2019 for publishing the election
schedule in daily newspaper "Gorakhpur
Keshari" and the actual publication was
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made on 30.10.2019 for election of
delegates/representatives from respective
constituencies for forming the general body
for the purpose of election of member of
the board. As per the schedule of general
body election, tentative and final voter's list
was published and the election was held on
06.1.2020 from 8 AM to 5 PM at respective
voting places in respective Divisions and
Headquarters. After collecting the same, the
final result was declared on 08.01.2020,
whereby
the
electoral
college
was
constituted for the purpose of conducting
the election of Board of Directors. After
declaration
of
the
result
of
delegates/members of general body further
publication was made in daily newspaper
"Gorakhpur
Keshari"
on
10.01.2020
publishing
the
election
schedule
for
conducting the election of member of the
board fixing date on 18.02.2020 for filing
of nomination, inviting objection, scrutiny
of nomination papers, withdrawal of
nomination, publication of final nomination
list and time for voting, if necessary and
declaration of the result at 4 PM. The
election schedule for election of the
Chairman
and
Vice
Chairman
was
simultaneously published fixing date of
election on 19.02.2020 and its declaration
after completing all formalities on same
date at 12.30 PM. The election of Board of
Directors and its office bearers was held on
18.2.2020 as per provisions of Clause 26 of
the bye-laws of the Society. The election of
Chairman and Vice Chairman was held on
19.02.2020 and its intimation was sent to
the Central Registrar on 20.02.2020.

20. It was submitted that the first
petitioner had concealed the fact that prior
to the election of the year 2015, he had
already been elected as Chairman of the
Board for two consecutive terms i.e. from
2008 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2015 and he
was again elected as Chairman in the
election for the third time on 31.07.2015.
However, the petitioner no.1, who was
illegally
holding
the
office
of
the
Chairperson in third consecutive term, was
removed on 27.09.2018 on the 'no
confidence motion' moved by Rajesh
Kumar Singh and the charge of the
Chairman was handed over to Anurag
Khare in officiating capacity. Finally, the
Central Registrar vide his order dated
28.05.2019 had decided that the first
petitioner is not eligible for being elected as
per provisions contained in Section 44 (2)
of the Act, 2002. The order of the Central
Registrar dated 28.05.2019 has not been
challenged and for all practical purposes
the same has attained finality. Meanwhile,
the Board of Directors, who were elected
on 31.07.2015, completed its term of five
years on 31.07.2020. Thereafter, it was
decided to hold the fresh election of the
Board of Co-operative Bank and for that
purpose, the meeting of the Board was held
on 25.10.2019 in which Ravi Prakash
Singh was appointed as Returning Officer
to conduct the election. The same was also
duly communicated to the Central Registrar
through registered post on 04.11.2019.
Fresh election had also taken place and the
new Board was constituted on 19.02.2020,
wherein
11
Directors
including
the
Chairman and Vice Chairman, were elected
and the new Board is discharging its duties
with effect from 19.02.2020. Except the
petitioners, who are only 12 in number,
others have not raised any objection and as
such, the claim of the petitioners is no more
in existence.

21. He submitted that the Central
Registrar can conduct the election, only if
the existing Board has failed to conduct the
election within due time as provided under
Section 45 (6) of the Act, 2002. Once in the
7 All. Brijesh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The Central Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, New Delhi
 & Ors.
945
present matter, the election process had
already
been
commenced
with
the
appointment of Returning Officer on
25.10.2019
and
the
election
of
the
delegates had already been held on
08.01.2020 then there was no occasion for
the petitioners to make any request before
the Central Registrar on 08.02.2021 for
appointment of the Returning Officer. The
petitioner nos.1 and 2 are not members of
the Board and they have not been elected as
Members of the Board in the election held
on 18.02.2020. Further, no objection was
made against the said election and as such,
after expiry of the limitation period, as
provided under Section 85 of the Act, 2002,
the election proceedings have attained
finality and the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed. He submitted that the writ
petition against the cooperative society is
not
maintainable.
Undisputedly
the
cooperative society cannot be termed as
State within the meaning of Article 12 of
Constitution of India. The Cooperative
Society had been formed to espouse and
protect the interests of employees of the
Indian Railways and its functions were
clearly private in character.

22. Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior
Advocate had lastly opposed the writ
petition on the ground of limitation and
submitted that the writ petition was
entertained in the year 2021 and at the
initiate stage, the petitioners had not asked
any relief qua the election, which took
place in the month of January-February,
2020. Once the said election had not been
challenged well within the limitation
period, as contemplated in Section 85 of
the Act, 2002 then at this stage, the election
of the year 2020 cannot be upset. In support
of his submission, he has placed reliance on
the Full Bench judgment of this Court in
Vikas Trivedi and others vs. State of UP
and others9; the Division Bench judgments
in Jyoti Kumar Malviya vs. Indian
Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd.
Others10 and Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti
Ltd. vs. State of UP and others11. He has
further placed reliance on the judgment of
the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C)
No.2059/202112, wherein, the petitioners
have challenged the steps initiated by the
respondents for the purposes of election of
delegates of the Northern Zone Railway
Employees Thrift and Credit Society
Limited, which is admittedly governed by
the Act, 2002 read with the Rules, 2002 and
the Bye-laws framed thereunder and the
Delhi High Court has proceeded to dismiss
the writ petition as not maintainable,
leaving it open to the petitioners to raise
those issues, if so chosen and advised,
before the appropriate forum.

23. Mr. Krishna Ji Shukla, Advocate,
holding brief of Mr. N.K. Chatterjee,
learned counsel for Union of India
submitted that Section 45 of the Act, 2002
deals with the elections of the members of
the board. Section 45 (1) provides that the
conduct of elections to the board of a
Multi-State Cooperative Society shall be
the responsibility of the existing board. A
Multi-State Cooperative Society is an
autonomous body accountable to their
members. The Multi-State Cooperative
Society is required to function as per the
provisions of the Act, 2002, the Rules,
2002 and its approved bye-laws. Section 45
(6) of the Act, 2006 provides that where the
board fails to conduct the election of the
members of board, the Central Registrar
shall hold the election within a period of 90
days from the date when such election
became due. Rule 19 of the Rules, 2002
deals with the procedure for conduct of
elections. Rule 19 (1) provides that the
election of members of the board shall be
946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conducted
by
a
Returning
Officer
appointed by the board in its meeting. The
Returning Officer so appointed shall not be
a member or an employee of the society.
The Society vide letter dated 20.02.2020
had submitted the election report to the
office of Central Registrar. Further the
provision of Section 123 of the Act, 2002 is
only applicable for supersession of the
board
of
a
Multi-State
Cooperative
Society/Bank and the Society in question
does not fall under the said category.

24. Mr. Shukla contended that in
compliance of the order of the Court dated
20.12.2018 passed in Writ C No.47230 of
2018, the personal hearing was accorded on
02.05.2019 and the petitioner no.1 and
other concerned parties appeared before the
Central Registrar. Finally, the Central
Registrar vide his order dated 28.05.2019
had found no reason to refer the matter for
arbitration under Section 84 of the Act,
2002 as requested by the first petitioner.