Shri Prem Kumar Bhagowalia vs The Deputy Registrar, C Operative Societies, Gurdaspur and others

R.N. Mittal, J.—This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ or direction be issued to the respondents to allow the Board of Directors of the Batala Primary Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. Batala (hereinafter referred to as the bank) to complete its term of office of three years from February 20, 1976. The case of the petitioner is that election of the Board of Directors of the Bank was held on June 19, 1974, in which the petitioner, Mohinder Singh Sarupwalia, Satwant Singh, Tirpat Rajinder Singh and Harcharan Singh were elected as Directors of the Bank The Board of Directors held a meeting on February 20, 1976, in which office bearers were elected by it. The petitioner was elected as President and Mohinder Singh Sarupwalia as Vice-President. It is alleged that the Board of Directors could not function prior to February 20, 1976, because the office bearers were not elected till then. It is further alleged that the first meeting of the Board of Directors was held on May 5, 1975. It is then averred that a notice for holding a meeting for election of the Directors on June 16, 1977, was issued vide Annexure P-l dated April 14, 1977, which is illegal as the election could not be held prior to February 20, 1979. In the circumstances, this writ petition has been filed with a prayer as stated above. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents. The written statement has however, been filed on behalf of respondent No 3 only. It is pleaded in the written statement that some other meetings were also held before May 5, 1975 and that the petitioner and the other members of the Board had been acting on behalf of the bank since the date of its election. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed

It is contended by Mr. Grewal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board was not allowed to function till February 20, 1976, when the election of the office bearers was held and the petitioner was elected as President He further submits that the first meeting of the Board was held on May 5, 1975 In the circumstances the learned counsel urges that the election cannot be held in any case prior to May 5, 1978. In support of his contention he placed reliance on M.C. Patti P. Co-op. L.M. Bank v. State 1976 P.L.J. 583.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length I, however, regret my inability to persuade myself to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed that the election of the Managing Committee took place on June 19, 1974. The Board of Director was not prohibited by any order either of the Court or of any superior authority to take charge of the office In the circumstances, it will be assumed that the Board of Directors took charge of the office just after election. It could hold meeting thereafter on any date. Section 26(1B) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, provides the term of office of the Committee. It is stated therein that that the term of the office of a Committee shall be three years. No period is mentioned from what date the period of three years will start. From the reading of the section, it is apparent that the period will start from the date when the election of the Board takes place. It is not disputed that the Committee as used in section 26 (1-B) and the Board of Directors in the present case are the same thing. In my view, the petitioner cannot take benefit from the fact that the first meeting of the Managing Committee, was held on May 5, 1975 Consequently the period of three years would start from June 19, 1974 It is also not disputed that the first meeting was held on May 5, 1975. After taking into consideration, all the aforesaid circumstances, I reject the conetion of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The facts of the M.C. Patti P. Co-op. L.M. Bank''s case (supra) were different. In that case, just after the election of the Committee, an injunction was issued by the Court on account of which the Committee could not assume duty. In the circumstances the learned Judge held that the term of office of Managing Committee should be granted from the date on which it was allowed to function for the first time. The ratio in that case is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs.