JUDGMENT Pratap Kumar Ray, J. 1. HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 2. HAVING regard to the impugned judgement before us, we are of the view that the appeal could be disposed of along with the stay application. Since the contesting parties are appearing, service of notice of appeal and other formalities stand dispensed with. 3. THE appeal is now ready for hearing. 4. THE impugned order reads such. "24.03.2010 By an order dated 4th November, 2008, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nadia, appointed a Board of Directors from amongst the members of Nababanga Co-operative Colony Ltd. Chittaranjan Mitra, was to become Chairman and Gopal Sarkar was to become the Secretary as per the aforesaid order. The writ petitioner, Sri Rabindranath Ghosh, was continuing as the Secretary of the aforesaid society since 1998. The said Sri Rabindra Nath Ghosh, challenged the legality of the order dated 4th November, 2008. That writ petition, it appears was disposed of by an order dated 3rd April, 2009, by which the authorities were directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner. An appeal was preferred against that order, which was allowed by an order dated 11th February, 2010, by which the Appellate Court set aside the order dated 3rd April, 2009 and remitted back the writ petition to be heard by the learned Single Judge after giving an opportunity of filing affidavits to the parties. Therefore, position as of today is that the order dated 4th November, 2008, is valid and operative. There is no interim order against that. The writ petitioner, Sri Rabindra Nath Ghosh, has again come back with the present writ petition. His contention in sum and substance is that (a) Until his earlier writ petition being W.P. 30495(W) of 2008 is disposed of no Annual General Meeting can be held, nor can any effect be given to the order dated 4th November, 2008. (b) The notice dated 18th February, 2010, issued by the Secretary, Gopal Sarkar, seeking to hold the Annual General Meeting is bad. (c) Alternatively, he submitted that in the event, the annual general meeting is to be held, then the same must be held under the supervision of the writ petitioner. Mr. Biswas, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent No.4, Sri Gopal Sarkar, submitted that the order dated 4th November, 2008, has already been given effect. (c) Alternatively, he submitted that in the event, the annual general meeting is to be held, then the same must be held under the supervision of the writ petitioner. Mr. Biswas, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent No.4, Sri Gopal Sarkar, submitted that the order dated 4th November, 2008, has already been given effect. Pursuant thereto, his client the respondent No.4, is discharging the function of a Secretary, which is, however, not admitted by the writ petitioner. He submitted that there is no reason why the Annual General Meeting should be stalled by the High Court because in the Annual General Meeting accounts will be scrutinized and the election will be held. So that democratically elected members can take over the function of the co-operative society. I have considered the real submissions advanced by the learned Advocates. I do not find any substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner that the order dated 4th November, 2008, has not been given effect to. The fact that the notice dated 18th February, 2010, which is under challenge in this writ petition was issued by the respondent No.4. goes to show that the order dated 4th November, 2008 has already been given effect. The petitioner is no longer the Secretary because the notice dated 18th February, 2010, has been issued by the respondent No.4, as the Secretary of the Society. The petitioner, according to him, was appointed in the year 1998 and has still been continuing. The petitioner, as I have already indicated, is no longer continuing as a secretary. There can be no doubt that he did continue as a Secretary for a period of ten years, which is not a healthy situation. He did not hold any annual general meeting during his tenure of ten years and by that process he continued for ten years. The submission advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner that the election may be held under the supervision of the writ petitioner betrayed his intention. The petitioner does not have any good intention. He, on principal is not opposed to the election but he wants the election to be held under his supervision. Why should such a prayer be acceded to? Why should the Court allow the aforesaid prayer of a person who has illegally usurped the office of Secretary for a period of ten years? He, on principal is not opposed to the election but he wants the election to be held under his supervision. Why should such a prayer be acceded to? Why should the Court allow the aforesaid prayer of a person who has illegally usurped the office of Secretary for a period of ten years? This writ petition is accordingly, disposed of by directing the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nadia, to appoint an observer and in his presence the election shall be conducted. Based on the result of the election the office bearers shall take over charge. It is clarified that opinion expressed herein as regards the legality of continuance of the writ petitioner in the office of the Secretary for a period of ten years are prima facie in nature. It is also recorded that the present board is valid till 4th May, 2010, which is another reason why the election should not be stalled? This writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Let a xerox plain copy of the operative portion of the order, duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to the learned Advocates for the appearing parties on usual undertakings." It is the grievance of the writ petitioner/appellant as made in the writ application that the Annual General Meeting as convened by one Sri Gopal Sarkar by the notice dated 18th February, 2010 was a notice without jurisdiction in view of the breach of the provision of section 25(3) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 whereby and whereunder a clear provision has been made that in the event of failure of the Board to convene the general meeting within twelve months from the date of the last preceding general meeting, the Registrar may call for a general meeting or he may authorise any of his officers to call a general meeting within a period of three months from the date of expiry of the said twelve months without prejudice to the penal measures that may be taken against the directors of the Board for not holding the general meeting within the period as prescribed in sub-section (2). On that point, the writ application was moved. Admittedly, the last annual general meeting was held in the year 1998 when the writ petitioner/appellant became the Secretary of the concerned housing Co-operative Society. On that point, the writ application was moved. Admittedly, the last annual general meeting was held in the year 1998 when the writ petitioner/appellant became the Secretary of the concerned housing Co-operative Society. On application of section 29(3) of the said Act, an order was passed dissolving the Board wherein the present writ petitioner/appellant was the Secretary on the ground that there was inaction on the part of that Board to form the next Board by convening the annual general meeting. Under the said provision, the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies passed an order appointing the new Board consisting of nine members with a direction to reconstitute the Board within one year from the date of issuance of the order dated 4th November, 2008. The order dated 4th November, 2008 reads such. "Government of West Bengal Office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nadia. ORDER In supersession of the previous order No. 1033 dt. 10.10.94 and 1293 dt. 16.10.98 of the undersigned because of inaction to form the next Board for which it was appointed, I do hereby appoint a board of directors amongst the members to the Nababanga Co-operative Society Ltd. as follows: 1. Chittaranjan Mitra, S/O Jyotish, Vill. Raghabpur, P.O. Panpara. 2. Gopal Sarkar, S/O Kanai, Vill.- Raghabpur, P.O.-Panpara. 3. Ashoke Adhikary, S/O Akshay, Vill and Post - Panpara. 4. Dipankar Kar Ray, S/O Sushil, Vill and Post - Panpara. 5. Dukhiram Das, S/O Debendra, Vill and Post- Panpara. 6. Prabir Kumar Bose, S/O Motilal, Vill. Raghabpur, P.O.- Panpara. 5. SWAPAN Dutta, S/O. Hemanta, Vill. Raghabpur, P.O.- Panpara. 6. CHRISTOPHAR Gomes, S/O. Liues, Vill. Raghabpur, P.O.- Panpara. Smt. Sandhya Dey, W/O Chittaranjan.Vill. - Raghabpur, P.O.- Panpara. Persons appearing at SI. No. 1 and 2 will act as the Chairman and Secretary respectively. The said board will take over/or assume Charge of the society immediately. They are directed to manage the affairs of the society and re-constitute board of directors within 1 (one) years from the issuance of this order and report accordingly. Sd/: Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Nadia." The relevant provision of section 29(3) of the said Act reads such. The said board will take over/or assume Charge of the society immediately. They are directed to manage the affairs of the society and re-constitute board of directors within 1 (one) years from the issuance of this order and report accordingly. Sd/: Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Nadia." The relevant provision of section 29(3) of the said Act reads such. "Section 29 (3) If the board is not dissolved and re-constituted in such manner and within such period as provided in the order under sub-section (1), the Registrar may by order in writing stating reasons and after giving the board an opportunity of stating its objection, if any, dissolve the board, the directors of which shall forthwith vacate their offices and the Registrar may appoint a board with the nominees, if any, of the State Government and with such members of the co-operative society as he thinks fit to manage the affairs of the co-operative society for a period not exceeding one year at a time and to arrange for the reconstitution of the board by such date as may be specified in the order." The tenure of the said nominated Board wherein Gopal Sarkar was the Secretary, was extended till 4th May, 2010 with a direction to constitute the new Board within the time stipulated positively. The order dated 1st December, 2009 extending the tenure of the nominated Board reads such. "Government of West Bengal Office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nadia. Memo No. 1734 Dated: 01.12.09 ORDER As the Secretary of the nominated Board of Directors appointed under this office Memo No.1630 dt.4.11.08 in the Nababanga Co-operative Colony Ltd. (Regd. No. 127) by a letter dated 22.10.09 stating reasons for failure of non-constitution of new Board of Directors within specified time i.e. 4.11.09, he prayed for extension of 6 (six) months' time for the purpose; the tenure of the said Board of Directors is therefore extended upto 4.5.10 with a direction to constitute new Board of Directors within the time positively. Sd/: Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nadia." 7. In pursuance thereof, the annual general meeting was convened and a new Board now has come into operation where the new President and Secretary have been selected. 8. Sd/: Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nadia." 7. In pursuance thereof, the annual general meeting was convened and a new Board now has come into operation where the new President and Secretary have been selected. 8. The point as urged by the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant that there was a breach of sub-section (3) of section 25 in view of failure to convene the annual general meeting within twelve months from the date of the last preceding general meeting. In the instant case, Registrar of the Co-operative Society directed and authorised the nominated Board to convene the annual general meeting and the nominated Board and its Secretary took steps for reconstitution of the new Board. Section 25(3) of the said Act reads such. "Section 25 (3) On the failure of the board to call the general meeting within twelve months from the date of the last preceding general meeting, the Registrar shall call, or authorise any of his officers to call, a general meeting within a period three months from the date of expiry of the aforesaid twelve months without prejudice to the penal measures that may be taken under this Act against the directors of the board for not holding the general meeting within such period as required under sub-section (2)." 9. On a comparative analysis of sub-section (3) of section 29 and sub-section (3) of section 25 of said Act, it appears that when any nominated Board will act in the filed of a Co-operative Society in terms of sub-section (3) of section 29, it will follow the order of the Registrar Co-operative Societies directing to make necessary arrangement for reconstitution of the new Board specifying the time limit in that order itself passed in exercise of power under sub-section (3) of section 29. When sub-section (3) of section 29 is in operation and acting in the field, we are of the view that section 25 has no applicability which is a provision to save the deadlock situation of the Co-operative Society for non-convening of the annual general meeting by the earlier Board. Section 29 of said Act deals with different situation for dissolution of the Board and for passing necessary direction for reconstitution of the new Board by nominating the new Board to that effect. 7. Section 29 of said Act deals with different situation for dissolution of the Board and for passing necessary direction for reconstitution of the new Board by nominating the new Board to that effect. 7. BESIDES such, a nominated board is empowered by the order of Registrar to convene annual general meeting for re-constitution of board. Nominated board is nothing but nominee of Registrar. Hence, there is no breach of even section 25 of the Act. 8. HAVING regard to the clear provision of law, we are of the positive view that sub-section (3) of section 25 has no applicability in the present case. Considering the aforesaid findings and observation, there is no merit in the writ application as filed by the writ petitioner/appellant. The learned Trial Judge though passed the impugned order in different angle and disposed the writ application, we modify the impugned order before us by holding, inter alia, that the writ application had no merit. The writ application accordingly stands dismissed. 9. THE appeal and the application for stay accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid finding. 10. IT is made clear that the present Board as has been constituted, will continue to function in accordance with law. Learned Advocate appearing for Mr. Gopal Sarkar has informed this Court that already present Board has taken charge and is functioning. Sri Madhusudan Das has been elected as Secretary of the new Board. 11. HAVING regard to such, this newly Board will continue to function in accordance with law. Harish Tandon, J.: I agree. B.D.