Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 352 (JHR)

Subhash Prasad Saw v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-03-21

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Learned counsel for both sides. 2. This appeal is by the petitioner in WP (C) No. 6454 of 2002. The appellant is the Deputy Chairman of the Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Dhanbad. The appellant approached this Court with the writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take steps for holding the election for constitution of the Managing Committee of the Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank. According to the appellant, the term of the Managing Committee ended on the completion of the Co-operative year on 31.3.2002, but the Managing Committee was entitled to continue in office for a term of nine months for holding the election to the succeeding Managing Committee. That period of grace expired on 31.12.2002. The election was not held. According to the appellant that was due to the failure of the Deputy Commissioner to appoint an Election Officer for holding the election. Whatever it may be, on the expiry of the grace period of nine months ending on 31.12.2002, an Administrator was appointed for the Cooperative Bank as mandated by the statute. The Administrator is continuing. The claim of the appellant is that the election to the Managing Committee is not being held malafide and it was in that situation that the appellant was constrained to move this Court for the issue of a direction as sought for in the writ petition. 3. The respondents met this contention by pointing out that the Managing Committee had to be elected from 85 Primary Cooperative Societies and 10 Vyapar Mandals. It was found that out of them, except 3 Primary Co-operative Societies and 4 Vyapar Mandals, all are defaulters to the Co-operative Bank. It was, therefore, submitted that the Managing Committee, as envisaged by the bye- laws of the Co-operative Bank, could not be constituted and that was the reason for the delay in holding the election for the constitution of a fresh Managing Committee. 4. The learned Single Judge found that on the facts, and in the circumstances, the Administrator was rightly appointed. Taking note of the apprehension of the appellant that the holding of election to the newly Managing Committee may be indefinitely postponed, the learned Single Judge directed the Administrator, to hold the election as early as possible and preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of his order. Taking note of the apprehension of the appellant that the holding of election to the newly Managing Committee may be indefinitely postponed, the learned Single Judge directed the Administrator, to hold the election as early as possible and preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of his order. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has come up with this appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge was in error in thinking that Section 14(6) of the Jharkhand Co-operative Societies Act had any application to the case In hand and the fixing of a time limit for holding the election on the basis of Section 14(6) was not proper. Counsel further submitted that the process for holding the election has not even been started and that a direction was called for to complete the process of election, particularly a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to appoint an Election Officer forthwith. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the order appointing the Administrator being not in challenge any more, there is no reason for feeling aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. Of course, an attempt was made to question the motive of the appellant in approaching this Court with the present writ petition. There is some force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that whether a particular PAC or Vyapar Mandal is a defaulter is a question which has to be considered with reference to the relevant Rules and that question will arise and after the process of election is commenced and the nominations are invited. But ultimately, an Administrator has rightly been appointed and this court has directed the Administrator to hold the election within six months from the date of communication of the order of this court dated 4.2.2008. We do not find any reason why the appellant should feel aggrieved by that direction. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that strictly the Administrator can continue for a period upto five years and the present direction issued by the learned Single Judge is really to assuage the apprehension of the appellant that the election will be indefinitely postponed. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that strictly the Administrator can continue for a period upto five years and the present direction issued by the learned Single Judge is really to assuage the apprehension of the appellant that the election will be indefinitely postponed. We are not inclined to see any force in the argument objecting to the fixation of time for holding the election of the Managing Committee. The direction issued by this Court can only lead to the fulfillment of the wish expressed by the appellant that the election should be held without any delay. We are satisfied that the direction issued by this Court to hold the election within six months does not call for any interference. But taking note of the submissions made at the bar, we also direct the Deputy Commissioner to appoint an Election Officer forthwith if has not already been done, so that the election can be held within the time limit set by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is thus dismissed but subject to the above additional direction issued to the Deputy Commissioner.