JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, Actg. CJ. - Ram Samujh Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on his own behalf as also on behalf of Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Jaunpur and its Managing Committee. The petitioners claim relief in respect of proceedings initiated by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies under S. 35 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide notices D/- 22-5-1985 and 7-6-1985 and pray that the order D/- 20-6-1985 suspending the Managing Committee of the Bank, be quashed. 2. The Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) is a Central Co-operative Society which stands notified under the provisions of sub-sec. (3)of Sec. 29 of the Act. The term of Bank's Managing Committee expired in the year 1976, but due to certain reasons, which it is not necessary to recount, no steps to elect the successor Committee were taken in time. Accordingly, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in exercise of his powers under Sec. 29 of the Act, appointed from time to time, various Administrators to run the affairs of the Bank. These Administrators continued to function year after year. As steps were not being taken to elect the Managing Committee of the Bank, petitioner Ram Samujh Singh filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1111 of 1985 before this Court and on 29-1-1985 he obtained an interim order requiring the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to take steps for holding elections within three months of the date of the order. Accordingly, necessary arrangements were made and election for membership of the Managing Committee took place on 27-4-1985. Thereafter the elections for the offices of Chairman and Vice- Chairman took place on 28-4-1985. In the said election petitioner Ram Samujh Singh was elected as Chairman. 3. Within about 24 days of constitution of the aforesaid Managing Committee, the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, issued a notice dated 22-5-1985 to the Managing Committee of the Bank and its members (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) requiring them to show cause within 15 days as to why the Committee should, under Sec. 35(2) of the Act, be not superseded on grounds stated in the charge-sheet attached thereto. The said charge-sheet listed as many as seven charges which, according to the Deputy Registrar indicated that during the short period of its existence the Committee had been persistently making defaults and was negligent in performance of the duties imposed upon it by the Act, Rules and the bye-laws. It had not been functioning properly and had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank and its members. The Managing Committee of the Bank was required to submit its explanation within 15 days, and 7-6-1985 was fixed for hearing. 4. The Committee met on 31-5-1985 and passed a resolution (Annexure-9) offering its explanation in respect of various charges levelled against it. While submitting its explanation in respect of one of the charges, namely, charge No. 6, the Committee resolved that it should again meet on 15-6-1985 for consideration of the steps suggested in that regard by the Deputy Registrar. The Committee also resolved that the Deputy Registrar be requested to, instead of hearing the case on 7-6-1985, fix some other date for that purpose after 15-6-1985; and that it should be afforded an opportunity for personal hearing and production of evidence and documents etc. A copy of the said resolution was forwarded to Deputy Registrar on 5-6-1985. 5. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, considered the aforesaid resolution of the Committee on the date fixed by him in the notice D/- 20-5-1985 (that is on 7-6-1985) and issued a second notice under S. 35 of the Act of the Managing Committee and its members requiring them to show cause why the Managing Committee be not superseded. In this notice the Deputy Registrar indicated the reasons why he did not find the explanation offered by the Committee in respect of various charges (except Charge No. 6) satisfactory. He also observed that so far as Charge No. 6 was concerned, the position would become clear only after the meeting of the Managing Committee took place on 15-6-1985. He therefore, called upon the Committee to offer its fresh explanation and fixed 10-6-1985 (this date appears to be wrong) for hearing. He also observed that so far as Charge No. 6 was concerned, the position would become clear only after the meeting of the Managing Committee took place on 15-6-1985. He therefore, called upon the Committee to offer its fresh explanation and fixed 10-6-1985 (this date appears to be wrong) for hearing. He also indicated that in case the Committee did not decide about the steps that it proposed to take in respect of Charge No. 6 in its meeting dated 5-6-1985 and failed to offer its explanation and to furnish material in respect thereof by the next date, it will be taken that the said charge was correct and action would be taken accordingly. 6. Managing Committee of the Bank met on 14-6-1985 and resolved that inasmuch as the Deputy Registrar, before whom the proceeding under S. 35 were pending, appeared to be prejudiced, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies should be approached and requested to make an order transferring the case to the file of some other Officer (Annexure-13). It again met on 15-6-1985 for considering its stand in respect of Charge No. 6 and resolved that as the Deputy Registrar had not furnished any definite evidence with regard to disqualification said to have been incurred by various members of the Committee, it would, in absence of definite evidence, not be fair to initiate any proceedings against such members specially when such members had been regularly elected only about a month and half back, and that at the time of their election, which took place under the orders of the High Court and in which the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaunpur, a member of the Indian Administrative Service, had acted as the Returning Officer, neither was any objection raised regarding the qualifications of such members by any one nor did any one question the same before any competent authority. The Managing Committee further resolved that in absence of definite proof and evidence regarding disqualification it would be absolutely irregular and against the principles of natural justice to take any action under R. 454, against such members. It, therefore, requested the Deputy Registrar to furnish proof in respect of the said charge at any early date and also decided that it would before taking any action under R. 454, hold an inquiry into the allegations of disqualifications said to have been incurred by various members at its own level. It, therefore, requested the Deputy Registrar to furnish proof in respect of the said charge at any early date and also decided that it would before taking any action under R. 454, hold an inquiry into the allegations of disqualifications said to have been incurred by various members at its own level. A copy of the resolution (Annexure-10) was forwarded to the, Deputy Registrar. 7. The Deputy Registrar again considered the matter but he did not find the explanation furnished by the Committee satisfactory. He observed that the Co-operative year was coming to an end on 30-6-1985. If the Managing Committee is not prevented from functioning and appropriate arrangement for carrying on the business of the bank is not made immediately, the Bank is likely to suffer great loss and it would not be able to achieve the targets fixed for augmenting Bank deposits, and realisations of the Bank loans. The Bank would also not be able to pay the instalments due to the Apex Bank with the result that it will not be in a position to provide financial assistance to farmers during `Kharif' season. The Deputy Registrar opined that in the circumstances it had become absolutely necessary to suspend the Managing Committee of the Bank. In the result, he exercised the powers conferred upon him by Sec. 35(3) of the Act and passed the order D/- 20-6-1985 suspending the Bank's Managing Committee for the duration of the proceedings for its supersession. In his order the Deputy Registrar further observed that as a result of the order suspending the Managing Committee, its Chairman and Vice-Chairman also would cease to function. He then went on to appoint a Committee of 11 persons to manage the affairs of the Bank. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners questions the validity of the proceedings for supersession of the Managing Committee initiated vide notices D/- 22-5-1985 and 7-6-1985 as also that of the order D/- 20-6-1985 suspending it during the pendency of the proceedings for its supersession inter alia on the ground that initiation of such proceedings on the basis of seven charges levelled against the Committee does not fall within the purview of the provisions contained in Sec. 35 of the Act. 9. 9. Section 35 of the Act runs thus :- "Supersession or suspension of Committee of Management- (1) Where in the opinion of the Registrar the Committee of Management of any Co-operative Society persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act or the Rules or the bye-laws of the Society or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members or is otherwise not functioning properly, the Registrar after affording the Committee of Management a reasonable opportunity of being heard and obtaining the opinion of the general body of the Society in a general meeting called for the purpose in the manner prescribed may, by order in writing supersede the Committee of Management; Provided that where under the prescribed circumstances it is not feasible to convene a general meeting of the general body of the Society, the Registrar may dispense with the requirement of obtaining the opinion of the general body of the Society; (2) Where the Registrar, while proceeding to take action under sub-sec. (1) is of opinion that suspension of the Committee of Management during the period of proceedings is necessary in the interest of the Society, he may suspend the Committee of Management which shall thereupon cease to function and make such arrangement as he thinks proper for the management of the affairs of the Society till the proceedings are concluded; Provided that if the Committee of Management so suspended is not superseded which shall be re-instated and the period during which it has remained suspended shall count towards its term. (3) to (7) ................... 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised preliminary objection and contended that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be countenanced inasmuch as neither the two notices D/- 22-5-1985 and 7-6-1985 nor the order dated 20-6-1985 affect any legal rights of the petitioners. According to him, a Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society has only such legal rights as have been conferred upon it by the Act and the Rules and bye-laws framed thereunder. Only legal right conferred upon the Committee, by the Act and the Rules and the bye-laws framed thereunder, is to manage the affairs of the Bank for a period of three years. Only legal right conferred upon the Committee, by the Act and the Rules and the bye-laws framed thereunder, is to manage the affairs of the Bank for a period of three years. Mere issuing of the notices D/- 22-6-1985 and 7-6-1985 does not in any way result in interference with such right. Even the order D/- 20-6-1985 does not affect the right of the Managing Committee to manage the affairs of the Bank for a period of three years inasmuch as the proviso to Sec. 35(2) of the Act lays down that if eventually it is decided not to supersede the Society, the period during which the Committee remained suspended shall be added to its three years' term. In such cases the Committee would invariably get its full statutory powers to manage the affairs of the Bank. 11. We are unable to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be presented not only after petitioners rights have been invaded but also when they have been threatened with an immediate peril (See Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, (1955) 2 SCR 603 : ( AIR 1955 SC 661 ) and Kavalappara K. Kochunni v. State of Madras AIR 1959 SC 725 . Viewed in this light there can be no manner of doubt that in the circumstances of the case the two notices issued to the petitioners requiring them to show cause why the Managing Committee should not be superseded, constituted real threat or peril to petitioner's, statutory right. 12. Moreover, the order D/- 20-6-1985 suspending the Managing Committee during the pendency of the proceedings for its supersession has actually affected the legal right of the Managing Committee to manage the affairs of the Bank. The submission that the said right does not stand infringed because the period of suspension would under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 35 be added to its term of three years, in case it is found that the Committee did not deserve to be superseded, does not at all appeal to us. According to the bye-laws of the Bank, the tenure of the Managing Committee is three Co-operative years including the Co-operative year in which the election had taken place. The proviso to sub-sec. According to the bye-laws of the Bank, the tenure of the Managing Committee is three Co-operative years including the Co-operative year in which the election had taken place. The proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 35 merely lays down that where a Committee of Management is suspended and it is eventually reinstated the period during which it has remained suspended shall count towards its term, that is, while calculating the said period the period during which the Committee has remained under suspension shall be taken into account. In other words the said period of suspension will not have the effect of extending the tenure of the Committee of Management as provided by the bye-laws of the Bank. If while computing the tenure of the Managing Committee the period during which it has remained in suspension is being ignored it is certainly not being counted towards its term. If the intention of the legislature had been to, in cases of suspension of Managing Committees, increase its original tenure, it would have, instead of saying that such period shall count towards its term, stated that such period would be added to such term. In the circumstances, there can be no manner of doubt that if the petitioners make out a case that the proceedings for the supersession of the Managing Committee and for its suspension suffer from some infirmity, the relief cannot be refused to them on the ground that the impugned notices and order do not infringe any legal right of the petitioners. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents, therefore, fails and we would proceed to examine the validity of the submission made by the petitioners. 13. We now proceed to consider the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, viz., that the grounds on which the proceeding for supersession of the Bank has been initiated do not fall within the purview of the provisions contained in Sec. 35 of the Act. The provisions of Sec. 35 of the Act have already been quoted in the earlier part of this judgment. The provisions of Sec. 35 of the Act have already been quoted in the earlier part of this judgment. Under this section the proceedings for supersession of the Committee of Management can be initiated only where in the opinion of the Registrar the Committee of Management persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed upon it by the Act or the Rules of the bye-laws of the society or, commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members or, is otherwise not functioning properly. It clearly implies that the action for supersession of the Committee of Management can be taken only for some remissness on its part and not otherwise. It is in this light that we propose to proceed to examine the question whether any of the seven charges levelled against the Committee of Management of the Bank falls within the purview of Sec. 35 of the Act. 14. The first charge, levelled against the Committee of Management, mentions that the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. had issued a circular D/- 8-4-1985 addressed to all the Secretaries of the District Co-operative Banks, Varanasi Region, regarding realisation of Co-operative dues, but then the Committee of Management did not pay any heed to that communication which laid down certain targets for making realisation of Bank dues during the months of May and June 1985. The charge against the Committee was that it failed to achieve the said target because of its indifference. It thus appeared that the Committee of Management had been indifferent to its duties regarding implementation of the `drive' for realisation of Bank dues and that it had not been functioning properly. In this connection the evidence cited under the said charge merely referred to the letter D/- 8-4-1985 from the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. the resolution passed by the Committee of Management on 28-4-1985, and the progress report concerning realisations made by the Bank. In substance the inference under the first charge that the Committee of Management has been negligent in performing its duties, is sought to be drawn from the fact that it was, during the short term of its existence, not able to achieve the targets for realisation of the Bank dues fixed by the letter of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. D/- 8-4-1985. 15. A copy of the letter. 15. A copy of the letter. D/- 8-4-1985 has been filed as Annexure-C.A. 15 to the counter affidavit sworn by Udresh Singh filed on 16-8-1985 (referred to in para 45 of the counter- affidavit). A perusal of the said communication indicates that it was addressed to the persons falling under following two categories : - 1. All Assistant Registrars, Co-operative Societies, Varanasi Region; and 2. All Secretaries of District Co-operative Bank Ltd., of Varanasi Region. It purports to lay down the strategy for the special drive for realisation of the Government dues during the period 1-4-1985 to 30-6-1985. It very clearly mentions that the position of realisation of the Government dues in Varanasi Region in the relevant co-operative year and up to 1-4-1985 had been extremely unsatisfactory and that the addressees of the said communication had been indifferents to the directions regarding recovery of Government dues issued by the Registrar on 30-10-1984. A perusal of the communication D/- 8-4-1985 clearly brings out that very detailed instructions had been issued by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. to various Assistant Registrars of Co-operative Societies and the Secretaries of District Co- operative Banks, requiring them to take specific action for achieving the targets for realisation of Government dues fixed by him and it also made it clear that it will be the responsibility of the Assistant Development Officers and the Branch Managers of the District Co-operative Banks to see to it that the realisations in accordance with the detailed instructions contained in the said letter were made. The communication neither required the Committee of Management of any co-operative Bank to take any action nor did it purport to hold them responsible for non-compliance of the directions contained therein. In the circumstances, the Committee of Management could not, in this regard, be blamed for not taking any step for achieving the target for realisation as required by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies' communication D/- 8-4-1985. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, relied upon Sec. 29 of the Act which lays down that the Management of every co-operative society shall vest in a Committee of Management which shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, relied upon Sec. 29 of the Act which lays down that the Management of every co-operative society shall vest in a Committee of Management which shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws. Rule 115 provides that in conducting the affairs of a co-operative society every member of the Committee of Management shall exercise prudence and diligence of an ordinary man of business, shall not do anything which may be contrary to the provisions of the Act, Rules or bye-laws of the Society and shall also not commit default in the performance of the duties entrusted to him under the Act, the Rules or the bye-laws of the Society. Learned counsel contended that in the circumstances, the responsibility for not achieving the targets for realisation of Government dues fixed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, in the communication D/- 8-4-1985, rested also with the Committee of Management and the fact that the realisations made during the months of May and June 1985 fell far short of the target fixed therein showed that the Committee was remiss or negligent in the performance of its duties. The action taken against the Committee on the basis of the first charge was therefore quite in order and apt. 17. We are unable to accept this submission. As already explained, the communication D/d. 8-4-1985 did not contain any direction to the Committee of Management. It contained specific directions which the Assistant Registrars of the Co-operative Societies of Varanasi Region and the Secretaries of various District Co-operative Banks in Varanasi Region were required to comply. In the circumstances, the fact that the instructions contained in the communication D/- 8-4-1985 were not faithfully carried out by the persons by whom they were meant to be complied with, cannot lead to an inference that the Committee of Management of the Bank had been remiss in its duties with regard to realisation of the co-operative dues. In the circumstances, the fact that the instructions contained in the communication D/- 8-4-1985 were not faithfully carried out by the persons by whom they were meant to be complied with, cannot lead to an inference that the Committee of Management of the Bank had been remiss in its duties with regard to realisation of the co-operative dues. No specific fact has been adverted to in the charge which could lead to an inference that the Committee of Management had otherwise been negligent in performance of any of the duties imposed upon it by the Act or the Rules or bye-laws or had committed any act which was prejudicial to the interest of the Society or its members. Likewise the charge does not contain any specification regarding malfunctioning of the Committee. W e are accordingly of opinion that the first charge levelled against the Committee of Management does not fall within the purview of Sec. 35 of the Act. 18. The second charge from which the inference that the Managing Committee of the Bank had been remiss in the performance of its duties it had not been functioning properly and that it was committing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Society or its members, is sought to be drawn, mentioned that the Managing Director of the U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd., by means of a communication D/- 27-10-1984 issued instructions that the deposits in the Bank during the Co-operative year 1984-85 must be augmented by 220 lacs of rupees Whereas on 30-4-1985 the Bank deposits amounted to Rs. 710.20 lacs, they on 10-5-1985 were to the tune of Rs. 710.55 lacs only. Thus during these ten days the deposits had increased only by Rs. 34,000/-. The charge further mentioned that by 10-5-1985. the Bank deposits had, during the co-operative year 1984-85 increased only by 53.26 lacs of rupees, and considering the slow progress which had been made in this direction it was impossible for the Bank to attain the target of increasing the deposits by Rs. 220 lacs, by 30-6-1985, the date fixed for the purpose by the Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lucknow. This indicated that the Managing Committee had during the Co-operative year 1984-85 been in deferent and negligent in the performance of its duties. 19. 220 lacs, by 30-6-1985, the date fixed for the purpose by the Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lucknow. This indicated that the Managing Committee had during the Co-operative year 1984-85 been in deferent and negligent in the performance of its duties. 19. So far as this charge is concerned, it is significant to note that the present Managing Committee came into existence only on 28-4-1985. The increase in the amount of fixed deposits by Rs. 220 lacs was to be achieved during the co-operative year 1984-85, that is, during the period 1-7-1984 to 30-6-1985. Prior to the date on which the present Committee of Management took over the affairs of the co-operative Bank on 28-4-1985 it was administered by an administrator appointed by the Registrar who had been managing the affairs of the Bank. During the period 1-7-1984 to 10-5-1985 the deposits had increased only by Rs. 53.26 lacs and they were nowhere near the target of Rs. 220 lacs fixed for the purpose. The real responsibility for not achieving the said target therefore lay on the Administrator appointed by the Registrar and not with the present Committee of Management which took over only on 28-4-1985. Surely, it was not expected to achieve the entire target of Rs. 220 lacs fixed for the purpose within 24 days of its existence. Charge No. 2 therefore, appears to have been mechanically levelled against the present Committee of Management, and in our opinion, cannot be taken into consideration in determining whether the Committee of Management deserves to be superseded under the provisions of Sec. 35 of the Act. 20. The third charge levelled against the Managing Committee was that it had during the `drive' period for realisation of co-operative dues and for procurement of further deposits, deputed its President to proceed to Goa and Bombay for studies and training. The charge further mentioned that in case the Managing Committee did not so depute the President his action in proceeding to Goa and Bombay and remaining absent during the `drive' period was prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and that the Committee of Management had remained in deferent and impervious towards this important programme. 21. The charge further mentioned that in case the Managing Committee did not so depute the President his action in proceeding to Goa and Bombay and remaining absent during the `drive' period was prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and that the Committee of Management had remained in deferent and impervious towards this important programme. 21. So far as this charge is concerned, the language used therein makes it absolutely clear that the Deputy Registrar who had framed the same, did not have any material with him to show that the Committee of Management had in fact passed any resolution deputing its President to proceed on study tour to Goa and Bombay and to remain absent during the relevant period. The petitioners have denied that the Committee of Management passed any such resolution. Even if it be taken that the President remained absent from the normal place during the crucial period, the responsibility for the same was that of the President personally and not that of the Committee of Management. If the President had committed any impropriety in this regard (we do not express any concluded opinion on this point) he could be dealt with suitably under the provisions of the Act; but then the Committee of Management cannot be made liable for such actions of the President. 22. Learned counsel for the respondents then argued that even if it be not possible to hold the Committee of Management directly responsible for the absence of its President during the crucial period, the fact remains that because of such absence a situation did arise wherein it was not possible for the Committee to function properly and the respondents were justified in proceeding to initiate proceedings for its supersession. In the first place, the charge does not, apart from mentioning that in absence of the President the Committee had become indifferent to some of its important functions, give any particulars of the functions which the Committee was expected to, but had failed to perform. Learned counsel contended that in the context what the charge really meant was that due to the absence of the President the Committee had failed to take appropriate steps for achieving the target of realisation and deposits by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. vide his communication D/- 8-4-1985. Learned counsel contended that in the context what the charge really meant was that due to the absence of the President the Committee had failed to take appropriate steps for achieving the target of realisation and deposits by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. vide his communication D/- 8-4-1985. The ambit and scope of the said communication has already been discussed by us while dealing the first two charges. We have already pointed out that the said communication was not at all directed to the Committee of Management and that the responsibility for non-implementation of the directions contained therein did not lay on it. In the circumstances, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, was not justified in taking any action against the petitioners on the basis of the allegations made in the third charge as well. 23. In charge No. 4 the Deputy Registrar pointed out that as per R. 115 of the Rules framed under the Act, each member of the Committee of Management is required to act intelligently, diligently and in a manner in which a prudent business-man would act. It also enjoins upon the members not to act in a manner so as to contravene any of the provisions contained in the Act, the Rules or the bye-laws. The accusation made against the Committee under this charge was that even though it had appointed some of its members as Chairman of various Advisory Committees constituted by it such members defaulted in the performance of the duties entrusted to them so much so that they did not attend the conference of Branch Managers etc. which had been convened for 21-5-1985. 24. Apart from the fact that the case of the petitioners in this regard is that the Chairman of various Advisory Committees appointed by the Managing Committee had not been invited to attend the conference convened for 21-5-1985, the petitioners asserted that in fact the Secretary/ Manager of the Bank along with all relevant staff had attended the said meeting. The said charge, even if true, relates to certain lapses on the part of individual members of the Committee. The said charge, even if true, relates to certain lapses on the part of individual members of the Committee. Having regard to the fact that the said conference was to take place on 21-5-1985 and the show cause notice in this respect was issued the very next date, that is, on 22-5-1985, it is difficult to comprehend as to how such non-attendance of the conference, by various Chairman, reflected malfunctioning of the Committee of Management. The position might have been different had the Member-Chairman to the knowledge of the Committee of Management failed to attend the conference, leading to the interest of the Bank being prejudicial affected, and the Committee had thereafter failed to take appropriate remedial steps in that regard. The fact that on one occasion such members did not attend a conference convened by the Deputy Registrar, cannot by itself, constitute material for concluding that the Committee of Management had not been functioning properly. It is not the case of the respondents that non-attendance of the conference by some such members constituted any default or negligence in performance of its functions on the part of the Committee of Management. This charge, therefore, also falls outside the purview of Sec. 35 of the Act. 25. In the fifth charge levelled against the Committee of Management, it was mentioned that according to the bye-laws of the Bank printed at page 24, the affairs of the Bank had to be managed by the Committee of Management which had been authorised to take all actions necessary for achieving its objective as also to do everything that would be in the interest and for the protection of the Bank. The accusation against the Committee of Management was that it did not convene any meeting in the month of May 1985 and this indicated that it was not functioning in accordance with the bye-laws. The Bank had been committing default in payment of instalments in respect of short-term and mid-term advances obtained by it to the U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lucknow. The Bank was also thus liable to pay one instalment of Rs. 27.89 lacs on 24-5-1985, but it failed to do so. It also had, by this time, defaulted in paying the instalments amounting to Rs. 149.50 lacs with the result that it was not in a position to obtain any facility for making advances to its members, from the Apex Bank. 27.89 lacs on 24-5-1985, but it failed to do so. It also had, by this time, defaulted in paying the instalments amounting to Rs. 149.50 lacs with the result that it was not in a position to obtain any facility for making advances to its members, from the Apex Bank. The Bank was thus in deferent towards this grave situation and was not in a position to achieve the objective with which it had been created. 26. So far as this charge is concerned, the allegations made against the Committee can be divided into following three categories : 1. It did not hold any meeting in the month of May 1985. This indicates that it was not functioning in accordance with the bye-laws. 2. It did not pay the instalment amounting to Rs. 27.89 lacs by 24-5-1985 and 3. Instalments amounting to Rs. 146.50 lacs had already fallen due which were not cleared by the Committee. 27. So far as the first of the aforementioned three defaults is concerned, it is significant to note that the Committee was constituted only on 28-4-1985 and it did hold its first meeting on that very day. Bye-laws of the Bank printed at page 17 thereof merely provide that the Managing Committee of the Bank shall meet as and when it becomes necessary to transact any business. No bye-law which obliged the Committee of Management to hold a meeting before 24-5-1985 has been brought to our notice. The contention of the Committee is that after its last meeting was held on 28-4-1985 it did intend to convene a meeting in the month of May 1985. In the circumstances, there is absolutely no material on the record to show that the Committee committed any default in not convening its meeting by 24-5-1985. This accusation, therefore, falls outside the purview of S. 35 of the Act. 28. So far as the second part of the accusation namely, that the Committee did not pay instalment of Rs. 27.89 lacs which fell due on 24-5-1985, is concerned the explanation of the petitioner is that after taking over the charge on 28-4-1985 it did pay a sum of Rs. 73.32 lacs towards aforementioned instalments due from it. The fact that during this time the Committee did pay the aforesaid amount has not been refuted by the respondents. 27.89 lacs which fell due on 24-5-1985, is concerned the explanation of the petitioner is that after taking over the charge on 28-4-1985 it did pay a sum of Rs. 73.32 lacs towards aforementioned instalments due from it. The fact that during this time the Committee did pay the aforesaid amount has not been refuted by the respondents. What is claimed on their behalf in this regard is that the said payment was made towards part payment of the huge outstanding of the Bank. In the circumstances, without going into the actual financial position of the Bank as existing on the date when the Committee of Management took over the charge it was not open to the respondents to accuse it either of persistently making default, or of being negligent in the performance of duties imposed on it by the Act or the Rules or bye-laws of the Society, or its having committed any act which was prejudicial to the interest of the Society or its members, or that it was not otherwise functioning properly. It thus appears that there was no material before the respondents for levelling aforementioned accusation. 29. Coming now to the third item of accusation contained in this charge, it is alleged that the Bank was in arrears of payment of instalments amounting to Rs. 146.50 lacs. It is not disputed that all the instalments had fallen due prior to 28-4-1985 while the Administrator appointed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies Act was in charge of running the business of the Bank. We fail to see how any action can be taken against the present Committee of Management for the defaults said to have been made by the Administrator. We do not understand how the Committee of Management while acting as a prudent businessman was expected to clear the entire arrears within a short span of 24 days. Be that as it may, there is nothing to show that there were ready resources available with the Committee from which it could have paid the arrears of such instalments. It is, therefore, not open to the respondents to, on this basis, accuse the Committee of making any default in payment of the accumulated arrears of instalments amounting to Rs. 146.50 lacs. In our opinion, the fifth charge levelled against the Committee also does not avail for taking an action against the petitioners under S. 35 of the Act. It is, therefore, not open to the respondents to, on this basis, accuse the Committee of making any default in payment of the accumulated arrears of instalments amounting to Rs. 146.50 lacs. In our opinion, the fifth charge levelled against the Committee also does not avail for taking an action against the petitioners under S. 35 of the Act. 30. As regards the sixth charge, we find that the allegation made against the Managing Committee is that four of its members who were elected on 27-4-1985, namely, Sarvasri Sripal Singh, Shiv Prasad Singh, Patiraj Singh and Krishna Datt Shukla, were for various reasons mentioned therein neither qualified to be elected as Members of nor were they entitled to continue as Members of the Managing Committee. As a matter of fact, the Committee was fully aware of the said disqualifications, but then it had remained indifferent in respect of such an important issue. The charge then went on to recite that, in the circumstances, it was expected that the Committee should take action for removal of such members under R. 454 of the Rules framed under the Act and in case it failed to do so, it will be taken as an instance of its persisting to commit default in performance of its duties. 31. Soon after the aforementioned charge was brought to the notice of the Committee, it held a meeting on 31-5-1985; wherein it passed a resolution mentioning that it has come to know about the alleged disqualification of the four members only from the communication of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 22-5-1985 and that a meeting for considering the question regarding alleged disqualification of members and for taking action under R. 454 be convened on 15-6-1985. The Managing Committee again met on 15-6-1985, and passed another resolution mentioning that the Deputy Registrar had in his letter dated 22-5-1985 mode a mention about the dis-qualification of four of its members, but he did not forward any definite proof for showing that the said members were in fact so disqualified. In absence of definite documentary evidence it was, in the opinion of the Committee not just to take any further action against the four members. In absence of definite documentary evidence it was, in the opinion of the Committee not just to take any further action against the four members. The resolution also noticed the fact that the four members had been elected only about 11 months back and neither any one raised any objection to their nomination nor did any one question their election before the competent authority. At the time of scrutiny their nominations were found to be valid and in order. The Committee, therefore, passed the resolution to the following effect : "1. In absence of definite proof it would not be fair and in the interest of justice to take any action against the four members under Rule 454 of the Rules. 2. The Committee should, on its own, institute an inquiry in respect of the allegations regarding disqualification of four members contained in the charge-sheet. 3. The Deputy Registrar be requested to furnish definite proof to support his allegation regarding disqualification of the four members." 32. A perusal of Charge No. 6 indicates that for purposes of superseding the Committee the Deputy Registrar intended to take the facts mentioned in this charge into consideration only if the Committee did not proceed to take action for removing the four members in accordance with R. 454 of the Rules framed under the Act. The Committee had considered the matter and had resolved that requisite material to show that four persons were in fact not qualified to be members had not been indicated by the Deputy Registrar. It accordingly decided that before initiating proceedings against the four members under R. 454 a preliminary inquiry should be got held and in the meantime the Deputy Registrar should also be approached to indicate the requisite evidence to support the allegations made by him. The Committee did not refuse to take proceedings against the four members under R. 454. In the circumstances, the stand taken by it that before formally initiating such proceedings it should hold an inquiry to verify the allegations contained in the charge-sheet, appears to be appropriate, fair and just. Inasmuch as the stand taken by the Committee was appropriate and it did not refuse to initiate proceedings against the four members under R. 454 of the Rules, no question of taking action for its supersession or suspension on the basis of the allegations contained in charge No. 6 has arisen as yet. Inasmuch as the stand taken by the Committee was appropriate and it did not refuse to initiate proceedings against the four members under R. 454 of the Rules, no question of taking action for its supersession or suspension on the basis of the allegations contained in charge No. 6 has arisen as yet. 33. The last charge levelled against the Committee was that the letter dated 10-5-1985 addressed by the President of the Bank from the Camp-Office, Lucknow to the Secretary clearly indicates that he wanted to make the `drive' for realisation of the co-operative dues, ineffective. In that letter he had issued instructions which instead of penalising tended even to forbid transfers of incompetent and Tax officials. After issuing the said letter the President went away to Goa and Bombay and the Committee of Management remained dormant thereafter. As a result of non-realisation of the co-operative dues the Bank was not in a position to make short-term advances and seasonal loans to its cultivator members. The Committee had thus acted in a manner prejudicial to its cultivator-members interest. 34. A copy of the letter dated 10-5-1985 addressed by the President of the Bank to its Secretary has been filed as Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit sworn by Sri Rama Shankar Rai filed on 22-7-1985. A perusal of the said letter indicates that the President had instructed the Secretary of the Bank to take all steps for making the drive for recovery of the Co-operative dues a success. It is true that in para 3 of the letter of the President mentioned that staff of the Bank should not be transferred till 30-6-1985, except under compelling circumstances. In the context the President appears to have forbidden transfer of officials at Branch level till 30-6-1985 primarily with the object of facilitating recovery, so that during this period the persons who were in the know of the things should not be disturbed. It has not been indicated in the charge as to which inefficient official who was an impediment to the drive for realisation of co-operative dues at any particular place had been retained and whose transfer being imperative was not made effective. We fail to see how, reading the communication dated 10-5-1985 as a whole, anyone can possibly infer there from that the objective lying there underneath was to impede the drive for realisation of co-operative dues. 35. We fail to see how, reading the communication dated 10-5-1985 as a whole, anyone can possibly infer there from that the objective lying there underneath was to impede the drive for realisation of co-operative dues. 35. So far as the other allegations made in the charge, namely, that because of the absence of the President the Committee had been rendered ineffective and that the shortfall in the realisation made by the Committee was due to such default, are concerned, they have already been discussed in connection with earlier charges, and it is not necessary for us to make any further comments in their respect at this stage. Suffice it to say that this charge gives one an impression that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents to construe every circumstance against the petitioners and to fish out circumstances justifying an action being taken against them. 36. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that on the basis of none of the seven charges formulated against the petitioners, is it possible to initiate proceedings for supersession of petitioner Managing Committee and the action of the respondents in suspending the same cannot be sustained. 37. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for us either to advert to or to comment on various other submissions made by learned counsel for the parties during the course of hearing of this petition. 38. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The proceedings initiated in consequence of the notices dated 22-5-1985 and 7-6-1985 are quashed. The order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. dated 20-6-1985 placing the petitioner Committee of Management under suspension is also quashed.