Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 98 (ORI)

GOUTAM SAMAL v. STATE OF ORISSA

2002-02-14

A.S.NAIDU, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN

body2002
JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. - The Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Cuttack (opposite party No. 3) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') is kept under control of the Administrator or the Committee under the provisions of Section 32 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (in short, the 'Act'). While the Committee or the Administrator was in charge of the affairs of the Society, the Administrator or the Committee called for Annual General Body Meeting of the society as mandated by Section 29 of the Act. Though no individual notice in terms of Rule 26 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965 (in short 'the Rules') was given, the notice was published in two dailies, i.e. one in vernacular and the other in English as provided and the publications dt. 8.6.2001 gave clear 15 days notice from the date of publication for the meeting to be held on 25.6.2001. 2. The writ petitioners, who are the members of the society, have come up with the present writ petition challenging the notice convening the Annual General Body Meeting issued by the Administrator or the Committee and seeking quashing of that notice, as well as quashing of the decisions that may be taken in the Annual General Body Meeting. This Court while admitting the writ petition, by way of an interim order, permitted the Annual General Body meeting to be held, but stayed the implementation of the decisions taken in the meeting, until further orders. The meeting took place as scheduled. Out of 30,000 members, 734 members attended the meeting. The quorum for the Annual General Body meeting in terms of Bye-law 23 of the Society, is 30 or one-fifth of the members, whichever is less. Five resolutions were moved and passed in the Annual General Body meeting. Even though in respect of four of the decisions, the writ petitioners had no difference, one of the decisions was opposed by them and it related to the amendment of the Bye-laws. The amendment was carried. It is submitted that the amendment of the Bye-laws has been sent to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for his approval in terms of Section 12 of the Act. 3. The challenge is made in this writ petition on the ground that the notice was not sufficient. The amendment was carried. It is submitted that the amendment of the Bye-laws has been sent to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for his approval in terms of Section 12 of the Act. 3. The challenge is made in this writ petition on the ground that the notice was not sufficient. This contention does not appear to be acceptable since it is seen that 15 days clear notice was given as provided by the bye-laws. No doubt, individual notices as contemplated, by the Rules were not sent. But there are 30000 (Approx.) members in the society and it was not practicable to give individual notices and it would have been very costly at the present postal rates. In the circumstances, we think that the publication of the notice in two newspapers, having reasonable circulation in the State has to be held to be sufficient compliance with the requirement, of notice. In any event, no member who could not participate in the meeting has come forward with the plea that he did not have notice. In that situation, we reject the argument based on insufficiency of notice. 4. Another question raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is that an Administrator or a Committee appointed in terms of Section 32 of the Act, could not take policy decisions as has been clarified by the decision of this Court in Rahas Bihari Das and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Jt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies Vs. T.A. Kuttappan and Others, There cannot be any dispute about this proposition. But the calling of an Annual General Body meeting to be held in terms of Section 29 of the Act, cannot be said to be a policy decision. It is in fact the carrying out of the administrative responsibilities by the Administrator or the Committee in terms of Section 29 of the Act. The Administrator, in our view, was bound to convene the Annual Genera! Body meeting in compliance with the mandate of Section 29 of the Act, and the Administrator or the Committee cannot be said to have exceeded its power in terms of Section 32 and the other relevant provisions of the Act. Therefore, the argument that the Annual General Body meeting could not have been convened by the Administrator or the Committee cannot be accepted. 5. Therefore, the argument that the Annual General Body meeting could not have been convened by the Administrator or the Committee cannot be accepted. 5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner sought to argue that the question of amendment to the Bye-laws proposed was illegal and improper The petitioners are entitled to raise such objection before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who has been approached for grant of approval of the proposed amendment of the Bye-laws, passed in the Annual General Body meeting. It is also open to the writ petitioners to raise any dispute in terms of Section 68 of the Act, if they are entitled to do so. It is open to them to challenge the amendment in an appropriate proceeding. Therefore, that argument cannot in any manner be said to vitiate the holding of the Annual General Body meeting. 6. Moreover, all that has happened is that the Administrator or the Committee has convened the Annual General Body meeting in compliance with the Statute for the purpose of the better administration of the Society, the final authority of which vests in General Body of members u/s 27 of the Act. Such calling for the Annual General Body Meeting by the Administrator or the Committee in the circumstances of this case cannot be said to be illegal or improper and in any event, we do not think that we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to nullify the calling of Annual General Body meeting. Thus, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and refuse to interfere with that action. Without prejudice to the rights of the writ petitioners to raise their objections before the appropriate authority, this writ petition is dismissed. A. S. Naidu, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed