AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,,
Biren Vaishnav, J",,,,
Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule for the concerned respondents. With the consent of the learned,,,,
advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matters were taken up for final hearing forthwith on 05.08.2020.",,,,
The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:,,,,
“10(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the show cause notice issued by the,,,,
respondent bearing No.MSB/01/TP/6296/2020 dated 19th March, 2020 which is at Annexture `J' to this petition and be further pleased to",,,,
quash and set aside the communication dated 27th May, 2020 which is at Annexture `L' to the petition.â€",,,,
The prayer arises in the context of the following facts:,,,,
* It is the case of the petitioner that the election of the Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Limited which is a specified cooperative society,,,,
was due in the year 2015. The election was to be held in accordance with Chapter 11(A) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter",,,,
referred to as `the Act'). The task of holding election was entrusted to the Collector. Certain dates are pleaded in the petition which are as under:,,,,
(1) 20.8.2015 - the name of the petitioner was sent by Rampura Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited as its representative by passing a resolution.,,,,
(2) 27.8.2015 â€" publication of the provisional list of voters; the name of the petitioner was shown as its nominee.,,,,
(3) 16.10.2015 â€" even in final list of voters, the petitioner's name was shown as a representative of the Rampura Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited.",,,,
* It is the case of the petitioner that the Rampura Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited is a member of the Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank,,,,
Limited and fulfills the eligibility criteria of being in the voters list of the Bank. It was only after due process that the name of the petitioner was,,,,
included in the list of voters. The petitioner's case is that the Rampura Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited had audit class B for the years 2013-15 and has,,,,
been consistently performing well either with audit class A or B since last ten years.,,,,
* It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner fulfilled the requirement and eligibility as candidate to contest the election of the Mehsana,,,,
District Cooperative Bank Limited and the bye laws, a detailed election programme was published; the petitioner filed his nomination paper and when",,,,
the election of Board of Directors - Members of the Managing Committee was held on 19.11.2015, the petitioner was duly elected as a candidate for",,,,
the Siddhpur seat in accordance with the declaration of the Collector dated 19.11.2015. No election petition challenging the election of the petitioner,,,,
was filed.,,,,
* Litigations have been referred to in the petition wherein the appointment of the Government nominees and professional Directors and action of their,,,,
removal was challenged by different parties but never was the election of the petitioner brought into question.,,,,
* It is the case of the petitioner that suddenly on 19.3.2020, the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies issued a show cause notice to the petitioner",,,,
asking the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be held to be ineligible to hold the post of the Director of the Mehsana District Central,,,,
Cooperative Bank Limited. The petitioner was given 7 days' time to explain.,,,,
* The case of the petitioner is that while issuing the show cause notice, the respondent has taken into account the opinion dated 16.3.2020 of the",,,,
District Registrar. He has also taken note of the representations made by three individuals, who have filed the present Civil Application through",,,,
Mr.Dipen Desai, leaned counsel for being joined as party respondents.",,,,
* The petitioner requested for time to reply to the show cause notice due to the current pandemic. However, there was repeated pressure from the",,,,
Registrar of Cooperative Societies that he must respond to the notice and the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation by 11.6.2020. The subject,,,,
matter of challenge in the petition, therefore, is the show cause notice dated 19.3.2020 issued to the petitioner holding as to why the petitioner under",,,,
the provisions of Sec.145(F)(e) read with Sec.27 of the Act and read with Rule 32 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Rules and bye law No. 32(6),,,,
of the bye laws of the Bank be held to be ineligible to continue to hold the post of the Director.,,,,
Heard Mr. Prakash K. Jani, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Shivang Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jani's submissions",,,,
are as under:,,,,
* According to Mr. Jani, the show cause notice suffers from several defects. He would submit that reading of the show cause notice would indicate",,,,
that no jurisdictional facts for initiating proceedings exist. He would further submit that the show cause notice suffers from total non application of,,,,
mind, inasmuch as, none of the provisions referred to in the show cause notice are attracted in the present case.",,,,
* Mr. Jani would further submit that there has been a deliberate misreading and error in reading the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the bye laws",,,,
and the show cause notice is aimed with a political malafide to remove the petitioner from the duly elected post of the Managing Committee of the,,,,
Board of Directors of the Bank.,,,,
* Mr. Jani would further submit that the show cause notice is premeditated or in other words issued with a predetermined mind and the same is issued,,,,
at the instance of a political party i.e. the present ruling dispensation and especially at the behest of the BJP MLA to whom the applicants of the Civil,,,,
Application have marked copies because she happens to be the MLA of the Constituency.,,,,
* Mr. Jani would take the Court through the memo of the Civil Application and letters annexed thereto dated 12.3.2020 which would indicate that the,,,,
applicants therein made a representation on 12.3.2020 and the Government promptly obliged by issuing the show cause notice dated 19.3.2020. In,,,,
furtherance of this submission, Mr. Jani would contend that the authors of these letters are neither voters nor residents within the vicinity of the same",,,,
village nor are they voters who voted in the petitioner's constituency and, therefore, they had no locus to ask for the removal of the petitioner from the",,,,
Board of Directors of the Bank.,,,,
* Mr. Jani would further submit that an audit report was submitted on 19.8.2019. It remained without any action forthcoming on the basis of that,,,,
report. Only when the Board was revived pursuant to some litigation in the High Court, with effect from 13.1.2020 that the audit report of 19.8.2019",,,,
was suddenly put into motion. The District Registrar's comments were invited on 16.3.2020 as is evident from the reference in the show cause notice,,,,
and within three days, the Registrar issued the show cause notice asking the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the",,,,
Sr. No,Citations,Party,"Relevant
Paras",Page Nos.
1,AIR 1961 SC 372,"Calcutta Discount
Company Limited v /
s Income Tax Officer,
Companies District I,
Calcutta","[ 6 ] [ 9 ] [10]
[12] [16] [17]
[20] [26] [27]
[28] [31] [39]
[53]",2-19
2.,2010 (13) SCC 427,"Oryx Fisheries Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Union of
India","[ 24 ] [28][29]
[32] [33] [37]
[38] [40] [41]
[42] [43]",20-27
3.,"2007 (3) GLR
2606","State of Rajasthan
Vs. Prakash Chand",9,28-30
4.,1998 (1) SCC 1,"State of Rajasthan
Vs. Prakash Chand",,31-54
5.,"2012 (2) GLR
1824","State of Gujarat Vs.
Nareshbhai P. Parmar",[9 ] [17] [18],55-64
6.,2014 (1) GLH 698,"Chaudhari Visabhai
K. Vs. State of
Gujarat","[7 ] [8] [12]
[13]",65-70
7.,2006 (12) SCC 33,"Siemens Ltd. Vs.
State of Maharashtra",12,71-73
8.,2001 (6) SCC 260,"Tarlochan Dev
Sharma Vs. State of
Punjab & Ors.",[6] [9] [10] [15],74-80
9.,2013 (7) SCC 25,"State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Sanjay
Nagyach","[16 ] [17] [22]
[25] [26] [28]
[34] [35]",81-91
10.,"D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 7451
of 2020","Prithviraj Meena &
Ors. Vs. Hon’ble
Speaker & Ors",,
* The first submission made by Shri Jani was that the notice under challenge i.e. the show cause notice dated 19.3.2020 was issued at the behest of,,,,
the applicants of Civil Application No.1/2020 who addressed a letter to the Registrar on 12.3.2020. Reading of the letters would indicate that it is,,,,
pointed out therein that the petitioner had been elected as a Director of the Bank for a period of five years. That the reaudit of Rampura Seva,,,,
Sahakari Mandali Limited of which the petitioner by virtue of being a member was nominated was carried out and the society received the audit class,,,,
D. The letter would further indicate that accordingly a request was made to the Registrar that since the society had now an audit class D, the",,,,
petitioner is disqualified to continue as a Director. On the question of locus of the applicants to make such a application, not being voters of the",,,,
petitioner's constituency, reading of the application makes it clear that the authors of these letters were members of Hajipur Seva Sahakari Mandli",,,,
Limited, Shri Kamli Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited and Shri Khatasna Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited. All these societies are the members of the",,,,
Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Limited. Being members of the Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Limited and having taken,,,,
loans from the Bank, they are directly concerned with the proper management with the Bank and, therefore, even entitled to put forth their point that a",,,,
Director of the Bank now stands disqualified by virtue of the provisions of the law in force. They, therefore, pressed into service bye law No.32(6) of",,,,
the Bank and suggested that the petitioner had no right to continue.,,,,
* Merely because on an application made on 12.3.2020, if the Registrar calls for a report and as referred to in the impugned show cause notice that",,,,
the District Registrar sends a report opining about the status on 16.3.2020, a presumption cannot be drawn that the impugned show cause notice has",,,,
been issued in hot haste and / or is premeditated or politically malafide merely because it is on the behest of the authors of the letter dated 12.3.2020,,,,
and such letters have been marked to the sitting Member of a Legislative Assembly. Any constituent would have a right to mark a letter addressing,,,,
his/ her grievances to the Member of a Legislative Assembly of his / her constituency and merely because a bald allegation of a politically malafide,,,,
action is suggested without joining Ashaben as a party respondent, I do not think it fit to accept the submission of Mr. Jani that the action is either",,,,
politically malafide or is at the behest of the applicants of the civil application, who had no locus to address these letters. Clearly, the authors of the",,,,
letters being a members of a society and who had obtained loans from the Bank were clearly interested in seeing that the Bank is functioning in,,,,
accordance with the provisions of law and rules in force.,,,,
Now let us undertake the exercise of appreciating the submission of Mr. Jani in context of a submission that the show cause notice suffers from,,,,
jurisdictional error and the sections, rules and the bye laws do not warrant the action because either they are not applicable or according to Mr. Jani, a",,,,
misreading of the bye laws under the rules and the sections have been made. In order to appreciate the controversy, let us reproduce the relevant",,,,
sections hereunder:,,,,
“SEC.27. RIGHT TO VOTE:,,,,
[(1)] No person shall exercise the rights of a member of a society, until he has made such payment to the society in respect of membership, or",,,,
acquired such interest in the society, as may be prescribed by the rules, or the bye-laws of such society.",,,,
[(2)] The person who has committed a default and remains as such defaulter in making repayment of loan or interest thereon for a period of one year,,,,
from the due date of repayment of such loan or interest or installment shall not be entitled to exercise voting rights of a member of a society till all,,,,
such repayments are made.],,,,
(3) No person shall exercise the right to vote at an election of a member of a committee in a financial year unless he is a member of the society for,,,,
the whole of the financial year preceding the financial year in which the election is being held:,,,,
Provided that no member society of a federal society shall exercise the right to vote at an election of a member of a committee unless such society,,,,
has its last accounts audited in the class A, B or C.",,,,
(4) Nothing in sub section (3) shall apply to the first election of a committee to be held immediately after the registration of a society.â€,,,,
SEC.145(F) DISQUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP:,,,,
(1) A person shall be disqualified for being elected, as, and for being a member of the committee of any specified society-",,,,
(a) if he is a salaried employee of any society (other than a society of employees themselves) or holds any office of profit under any society, except",,,,
when he holds or is appointed to the office of a Managing Director or any other office under the society declared by the State Government by general,,,,
or special order not to disqualify its holder;,,,,
(b) if he has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 153-A or Section 171-E or Section 171-F or sub-section (2) or sub- section (3) of,,,,
Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), or under Section 145-R or clause (a) of sub- section (2) of Section 145-S of this Act,",,,,
unless a period of six years has elapsed since the date of his conviction;,,,,
(c) if he has been convicted by a Court in India for any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years, unless a period of five",,,,
years has elapsed since his release;,,,,
(d) if he is found guilty of a corrupt practice under this Chapter by the State Government unless a period of six years has elapsed since the date on,,,,
which the decision of the State Government takes effect;,,,,
(e) if he is also disqualified by or under any other provision of this Act.,,,,
[(1-A) (i) (a) No member of a society in the Central Co-operative Bank and the State Co-operative Bank shall be eligible to be elected as a member,,,,
in the committee if he is in default for a period of twelve months in payment of dues to the society;,,,,
(b) no person elected as a member of a society in the Central Co- operative Bank and the State Co- operative Bank shall be continued as a member if,,,,
he is in default for a period exceeding twelve months in payment of dues to the society unless the amount in default with due interest is paid to the,,,,
society;,,,,
(c) no member of a Primary Agricultural Credit Co- operative Society shall be eligible to be elected as a member in the committee of the State Co-,,,,
operative Bank or a Central Co-operative Bank if the society is in default in payment of dues to the co-operative bank unless the default with due,,,,
interest is paid to the co-operative bank;,,,,
(d) no member of a non-credit society who is a member in the committee of a Central Co-operative Bank or the State Co- operative Bank shall be,,,,
continued as such member if the society commits default for a period exceeding 90 days in payment of dues to the bank.,,,,
(ii) The above provisions shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other provisions for disqualification contained in this Act.]â€,,,,
Rule 32 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965:",,,,
Qualification for the member of the Committee:- (1) Every member of a society who is entitled to vote shall be eligible for appointment as a",,,,
member of a committee thereof it-,,,,
(a) he is not in default in respect of any loan taken by him for such period as is specified in the bye- laws , or [(aa) he is not a defaulter in respect of a",,,,
loan or interest thereon as specified in sub-sec. (2) of Sec.27 of the Act, or]",,,,
(b) he has not directly or indirectly any interest in any subsisting contract made with the society or in any property sold or purchased by the society or,,,,
any other transaction of the society except in any investment made in or any loan taken from the society, or",,,,
(c) if he is not otherwise disqualified for appointment a such member [or],,,,
(d) he is not held responsible under Section 82, or",,,,
(e) no order for recovery of costs made against him by a Magistrate under Section 91, or",,,,
(f) no order is made against him under Section 93, or",,,,
(g) if he is not found guilty of any of the offences under Section 147 or any offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the,,,,
property of any society.],,,,
[(1-A) A member of the committee who incurs any of the disqualifications specified in sub- rule (1) shall vacate the office and if he does not vacate,,,,
such office, he shall be removed by Registrar as such member:",,,,
provided that the Registrar, shall before making such order of removal, give the person concerned an opportunity of being heard.]â€",,,,
The bone of contention between Mr.Jani, learned Senior Counsel and learned GP Ms.Manisha Lavkumar is whether Sec.27 read with Sec.145(F)",,,,
(e), Rule 32, would apply at the initial stage of being voted as a Director or such a disqualification would enure in the entire term and therefore in the",,,,
government's perception even the continuance of the petitioner as a Director would now no longer be possible in view of the disqualification that the,,,,
petitioner has occurred by the Society of which he was a member and on the basis of which he was nominated as an audit classification `D.',,,,
10.1 Reading Sec.27 of the Act would indicate that a member of a society can only exercise such rights as a member of such society under certain,,,,
requisite parameters. The proviso to sub sec.3 of Sec.27 indicates that unless the society has its accounts audited in class A, B or C in the last",,,,
accounts, no member of such a society shall exercise the right to vote at an election of the member of the Committee. In other words, in the event, the",,,,
society's audit class is D, as in the case of the present petitioner's society â€" the Rampura Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, the petitioner's society and",,,,
he being a member of society, would have no right to vote at an election.",,,,
Considering the facts on hand and reading the submissions in the petition it would indicate that the petitioner was nominated by the Rampura Seva,,,,
Sahakari Mandali Limited on the voters list of the Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Limited. His name was sent as a nominee of the,,,,
society for the elections to the Bank. According to the petitioner, he fulfilled the requirement and eligibility as a candidate to contest the election of the",,,,
Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Limited and, therefore, filed his nomination, his nomination was held to be valid and on the basis of this, he",,,,
was elected to the Board of Directors of the Managing Committee of the Bank.,,,,
Sec.145(F) of the Act provides for disqualification of membership. Reading of the section which is reproduced hereinabove would indicate that a,,,,
person shall be disqualified for being elected as and for being a member of the committee of any specified society if he is also disqualified by or under,,,,
any other provisions of the Act. In other words, apart from he being disqualified on being employed as a salaried employee of the society or any",,,,
conviction or having been found guilty of any corrupt practice, if any other provision under the Act disqualifies such person from being a member of",,,,
the committee of any specified society, the disqualification for membership shall be attracted. If this is read in context of the proviso to Sec.27(3)",,,,
thereof, reading this with sub clause (e) of Sec.145(F)(1), it would be a disqualification under sub sec.(3) of Sec.27 and be a disqualification under that",,,,
provision of the Act. The submission of Mr. Jani that the disqualification has to be at the time of the initial eligibility also appears to be misconceived.,,,,
Reading sub sec.(1) of sec.145(F) would indicate that a person shall be disqualified from being elected as and for being a member of the Committee.,,,,
In other words, the disqualification enures during the tenure of the petitioner's eligibility for the entire term as a Director, because, but for his being",,,,
eligible as a member in accordance to proviso of sub sec.3 of sec.27, the petitioner would not have been nominated as a Director of the Board of the",,,,
Bank. By an audit report of 19.8.2019 when the society on the basis of an audit classification D, which nominated the petitioner to be a representative",,,,
stands disqualified or ineligible to vote in terms of the proviso to sub sec.3 of sec.27, the disqualification is triggered.",,,,
12.1 This also finds support on reading Rule 32 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Rules, particularly Rule 32(1-A). One needs to appreciate the fine",,,,
distinction that has been made reading Rule 32(1) as compared to Rule 32(1)-(A) of the Rules. Mr.Jani's submission would find support if the rule was,,,,
read in isolation. True it is that Rule 32(1) when read would provide that every member of a society who is entitled to vote shall be eligible for,,,,
appointment as a member of the committee. Therefore, Rule 32(1) would support Mr.Jani's submission. Unfortunately what the learned counsel for",,,,
the petitioner has lost sight of is the provision of sub rule (1-A) of the Rules. Reading Rule 32(1-A) of the Act would indicate that a member of a,,,,
committee who incurs any disqualification specified in sub rule (1) shall vacate the office. In other words, the word incur when read in context of",,,,
vacate the office would unequivocally suggest that such a disqualification has to happen during the continuance of an incumbent in his term. Had that,,,,
not been the intention, the term “vacate the officeâ€, would not find place in the provisions of the rules. If Mr.Jani's submission is accepted then the",,,,
sub rule 1-A would have no point of being in place in the rules of the society's act.,,,,
12.2 That Rule 32(1-A) is a rule which is invoked and rightly so, is also finding support when one reads proviso to Sec.27 sub sec.3 thereof. The",,,,
proviso categorically states that no member of a society shall exercise a right to vote at an election of a member of a committee unless such society,,,,
has its last accounts audited in class A, B or C. Audit of accounts is done as an exercise at the end of every financial year. The audited accounts,",,,,
therefore, would be subject to a classification accordingly. It is in the context of this that the term “last accounts†has been used in Sec.27(3) of",,,,
the Act. Keeping this spirit in mind, Rule 32(1-A) finds place in the Rules. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Jani, learned Senior Advocate that the",,,,
disqualifications envisaged under the provisions invoked in the show cause notice are without jurisdiction because such disqualifications have to be,,,,
taken into account only at the initial stage of appointment is a submission which does not impress this Court.,,,,
The bye laws have been pressed into service by the Government and the petitioner in support of his submission. Bye law 32(6) has been pressed,,,,
into service by Mr.Jani as not applicable in context of the submission that I have not agreed to immediately hereinabove. The bye law, therefore, will",,,,
have to be read in conformity with the provisions of the Statute namely Secs.27, 145(F)(e) and Rule 32(1-A) of the Act. The submission therefore of",,,,
Mr.Jani for the reasons stated immediately hereinabove, does not warrant acceptance.",,,,
Though I do not impute any motives on the part of the petitioner to institute a petition against the show cause notice and would not therefore deal,,,,
with the submission of the learned GP that it is only after filing of the petition that the audit report of 19.8.2019 is challenged by way of an appellate,,,,
remedy on 20.7.2020. This may be one more attempt on the part of the petitioner to justify his submissions to support the petition against the show,,,,
cause notice. I leave it at that.,,,,
Having held that there is no jurisdictional error of fact or a jurisdictional error to make the show cause notice bad and, therefore, the justification to",,,,
invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the judgments cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner in the case of Calcutta Discount",,,,
Company Limited (Supra) and Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) would have no applicability.,,,,
15.1 While relying on the decision in the case of State of Rajasthan (Supra) and in the case of Nareshbhai P. Parmar (Supra), this Court would not",,,,
want to enter into the exercise of appreciating the validity of the action of the respondents at the stage of the show cause notice and consider whether,,,,
the action of the respondents of initiating the removal procedure is valid or not because having found that there is no error of jurisdiction, it is best left",,,,
to the authorities to take a call when the petitioner has responded or is yet to respond to the show cause notice. As far as the reliance placed on the,,,,
decision in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma (Supra) which is relied by the learned Single Judge of this Court while taking a decision of in the case,,,,
of Chaudhari Visabhai (Supra), Mr. Jani's submission that an elected representative can only be removed by the procedure that is envisaged for",,,,
setting aside his election, is a submission bereft of merit in view of the discussion of the provisions of law regarding disqualification which have been",,,,
invoked vis-a-vis the petitioner in the present case.,,,,
On the aspect of malafides, allegations have been made in the grounds of the petition. These are legal submissions not backed by facts. Moreover,",,,,
in addition thereto, though bald allegations have been made against the sitting member of the legislative assembly to whom the applicants of the Civil",,,,
Application marked copies of the letter, the concerned MLA has not been joined as party respondent which is a basic requirement when one makes",,,,
allegations of malafide. Allegations of political malafides are best made easily to substantiate and to support a petition. In the facts of the case, these",,,,
allegations are not supported by any credible evidence except bald allegations made in the grounds and during the course of submissions and the Court,",,,,
therefore does not intend to accept these as germane to the cause.,,,,
In the end of the submissions, Mr.Jani inviting the attention of the Court to the provisions of Sec.145(F) would argue that these disqualifications are",,,,
person centric. In other words, if the petitioner was to be disqualified for being convicted in a Court or being a salaried employee, these",,,,
disqualifications being personal to the petitioner would be applicable. Merely because the society of which he is a member would fail to be qualified as,,,,
an Audit Class as required under the law, would automatically disqualify the petitioner. Considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in",,,,
the case of Gujarat State Cooperative Banks Ltd. Union and another v. State of Gujarat cited by learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the civil,,,,
applicants which is reported in 2009 (1) GLH 371, this very submission was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in context of the words",,,,
“Person and a Memberâ€. In paragraph No.10 of the decision, a submission was made that a bye law would apply only to a person and not a",,,,
cooperative society and, therefore, the respondents in that petition should not be considered as disqualified under the bye laws as that applied to the",,,,
society and not the persons i.e. the respondents therein. The challenge in the Division Bench was to the preparation of the voters list in context of the,,,,
elections to the Board of Directors of the Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Limited. It is in this context that the Division Bench clearly observed that,,,,
individuals cannot become members of the petitioner Bank with voting rights. In other words, a member cannot be eligible to vote in context of the",,,,
present facts, unless the society has an audit classification so prescribed under the proviso to sub sec.3 of sec.27 of the Act. If that is so, the society",,,,
which nominated the petitioner and by virtue of which nomination, the petitioner became the Director of the Bank was not entitled to nominate the",,,,
petitioner to be a member and therefore be nominated to stand for election. The submission therefore that the provision is person centric also stands to,,,,
fail.,,,,
Admittedly, the petition is challenging the show cause notice dated 19.3.2020. Having extensively discussed and found that the notice does not",,,,
suffer from any jurisdictional error, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be loathe to interfere and",,,,
interject to the proceedings at the show cause notice stage, merely because the petitioner apprehends that the authorities have taken a premeditated",,,,
and a predetermined stand. Merely on the basis of such allegations, this Court would not prejudge the issue at the hands of the petitioner and leave it",,,,
to the authorities to take a decision on the show cause notice in accordance with law and without being influenced by such reasons.,,,,
For the reasons as aforesaid, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.",,,,
In view of the orders passed in main matter, Civil Application does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.",,,,
The Registry is requested to communicate this CAV Judgment through E-mail and / or Fax.,,,,
Sd/-,,,,
[ BIREN VAISHNAV, J. ]",,,,
FURTHER ORDER,,,,
Mr.Prakash K. Jani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner requests for the arrangement that was continued during the hearing of the",,,,
petition, be continued for a period of two weeks. While Ms.Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader with Mr.Kanva M. Antani, learned",,,,
Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent â€" State vehemently objected continuing of interim arrangement. However, this Court deem fit to",,,,
continue the arrangement that was continued during the hearing of the petition till 19.8.2020.,,,,