Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 649 (ALL)

Amar Singh Rathor v. Distt. Magistrate, Fatehpur

1991-04-23

G.P.MATHUR, V.K.KHANNA

body1991
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Committee of Fatehpur Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Fatehpur, which is a cooperative society registered under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Some members of the committee of management of the Bank gave notice of motion of noconfidence against the petitioner under Rule 456 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as, the Rules) to the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, who is the Specified Authority as defined in Rule 465 of the Rules. The District Magistrate, Fatehpur, by his order dated 22.1.1991 fixed 26.2.1991 as the date for holding a meeting for the purpose of consideration of the proposed noconfidence motion and nominated the S. D. O, Bindki, to act as the Presiding Officer of the meeting. However, before the meeting scheduled for 26.2.1991 could be convened, the District Magistrate passed another order on 25.2.1991 by which it was directed that the meeting shall be convened on 2.4.1991. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid order dated 25.2.1991 passed by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provision of U P. Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder do not confer any power on the Specified Authority to postpone and fix another date for holding the meeting for the purpose of consideration of the proposed noconfidence motion. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Specified Authority can exercise the power conferred by Rules 458 and 459 only once and once that power is exercised he becomes functus officio and cannot perform any other act with regard to fixing a date for convening the meeting or for nominating any Gazetted Government Servant. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in our opinion the contention advanced by the learned counsel is wholly unfounded. Part VIII of U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules lays down the procedure for removal of a Chairman or ViceChairman by a vote of noconfidence. A perusal of Rules 455 to 465 will show that the rules do not impose any such bar on exercise of power by the Specified Authority to postpone a meeting for the purpose of consideration of noconfidence motion. A perusal of Rules 455 to 465 will show that the rules do not impose any such bar on exercise of power by the Specified Authority to postpone a meeting for the purpose of consideration of noconfidence motion. The only bar which Rule 464 lays down is that, if the motion of noconfidence fails for want of quorum or lack of requisite majority at the meeting, no subsequent meeting for considering a noconfidence motion shall be held within six months of the date of the previous meeting. Subrule (2) of Rule 459 lays down the quorum for such a meeting and Rule 460 provides that the resolution for noconfidence shall be deemed to be carried if passed by a majority of twothirds of the members present. However, the stage for ascertaining as to whether there was a requisite quorum or whether the resolution of noconfidence has been carried or not will arrive only after the meeting has actually been convened and a Gazetted Government Servant is present as the Presiding Officer of the meeting. In case the legislature intended to lay down that the Specified Authority could exercise the power of fixing time, date and place of the meeting as contemplated by Rule 458 only once, it could have said so by making a provision to that effect. In the absence of any specific provision in the Rules we are unable to hold that the Specified Authority becomes functus officio after having once exercised the power conferred by subrule (1) of Rule 458 of the Rules. 4. In this connection the following statement of law in 'Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings,' Seventh Edition, by Ian Shearman, page 79, relating to Adjournment by the Chairman may be noticed which is as follows: The only instances where the chairman has the right to adjourn the meeting are as follows: 1. A power of adjournment is often vested in the chairman by the regulations of the body under whose auspices the meeting is held. 2. The chairman may adjourn on his own authority, in order to facilitate the business in the meeting, e. g. to take a poll. 3. In the case of persistent disorder, the chairman is empowered to adjourn the meeting: sometimes a short adjournment for, say, 15 minutes has the desired effect. 2. The chairman may adjourn on his own authority, in order to facilitate the business in the meeting, e. g. to take a poll. 3. In the case of persistent disorder, the chairman is empowered to adjourn the meeting: sometimes a short adjournment for, say, 15 minutes has the desired effect. It is, therefore, well settled that the power of adjournment is vested in the chairman subject to any restriction that may be imposed upon him by custom or, in the case of registered bodies, by regulations of those bodies. 5. The District Magistrate has clearly mentioned in his order dated 25.2.1991 that due to certain unavoidable circumstances the meeting scheduled for 26 2.1991 shall be held on 2.4.1991. In our opinion, in order to give effect to the intention of the legislature and the provisions of the Rules relating to motion of noconfidence against any functionary of a cooperative society, a power to adjourn the meeting must be deemed to be vested with the authority. There may be situations where it may not be possible to convene a meeting on the scheduled date. There may be riots which may warrant imposition of curfew or there may be some calamity due to which it may not be possible to hold the meeting on the date fixed for the said purpose. In such a situation it may be absolutely imperative to postpone the meeting fixed for the purpose of consideration of the proposed noconfidence motion. If it is held that the Specified Authority has no power to postpone the meeting once fixed, it will lead to disastrous results. A Chairman or ViceChairman against whom notice of noconfidence motion has been given may himself create such a situation that the meeting as originally fixed may not be held and in that event the whole exercise as provided in Rules 456 to 458 will have to be gone into again. This can never be the intention of the legislature. 6. We are clearly of the view that the Specified Authority has ample power under the provisions of the Act and the Rules to postpone the meeting and fix another date for the purpose of consideration of the proposed noconfidence motion. In our opinion there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Petition dismissed)