Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1294 (GUJ)

DIPAKBHAI PRAHLADBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2015-12-16

C.L.SONI

body2015
JUDGMENT : C.L. SONI, J. 1. In first two petitions, notice dated 24.11.2015 issued by the District Registrar under section 23 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is challenged. Pending these two petitions, the State Registrar issued show cause notice dated 5.12.2015 under Section 11 of the Act to the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, preferred the other two petitions challenging the said show cause notice dated 5.12.2013 issued by the State Registrar. 2. By notice issued under section 23(1) of the Act, the petitioners are asked to show cause as to why they should not be removed as members of respondent No.3 – Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Limited (“the Bank”). In other two petitions, the petitioners are asked to state as to why they should not be removed as members of the Bank as they became members of the Bank contrary to bye-law 5(8) of the bye-laws of the Bank. 3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Dipan Desai for the petitioners submitted that the notice issued under Section 23 to the petitioners is without jurisdiction as the notice issued is not on the ground that the petitioners became members of the Bank by making false declaration. Mr. Joshi submitted that what is alleged in the notice is that the petitioners were inducted as members contrary to bye law No.5(8) of the Bye laws of the Bank for which powers are available under section 23 of the Act. Mr. Joshi submitted that the petitioners were inducted as members under the resolution passed by the Managing Committee and approved by the General Body of the Bank and, therefore, the only remedy available against the petitioners is to file a suit under section 96 of the Act by any of the members of the society challenging the resolution passed by the society inducting the petitioners as members of the bank. Mr. Joshi submitted that there is no false declaration on the part of the petitioners while applying for membership of the Bank. Mr. Joshi submitted that unfortunately the application seeking membership is being considered as false declaration and except the application made by the petitioners, there is no other false declaration pointed out as being alleged against the petitioners. Mr. Mr. Joshi submitted that there is no false declaration on the part of the petitioners while applying for membership of the Bank. Mr. Joshi submitted that unfortunately the application seeking membership is being considered as false declaration and except the application made by the petitioners, there is no other false declaration pointed out as being alleged against the petitioners. Mr. Joshi submitted that giving membership to the petitioners was the unanimous decision of the managing committee of the society and over such decision, even if believed to be contrary to the bye laws, the Registrar has got no supervisory powers so as to annul such decision at any point of time. Mr. Joshi submitted that the action being taken is mala-fide and is for collateral purposes just to see that the petitioners may not take part in the ensuing elections. Mr. Joshi therefore referred to various proceedings taken out one after another till 24.11.2015 so as to point out that the only aim behind the impugned action is with political agenda to restrain the petitioners from participating in the elections. 4. So far as the petitions challenging the notice issued under Section 11 of the Act are concerned, Mr. Joshi submitted that there is total lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Registrar to decide under Section 11 of the Act on the question of the membership of the petitioners. Mr. Joshi submitted that the provisions of section 11 of the Act could be resorted to only when the question arises before the Registrar either for the purposes of formation, registration or continuation of the society or for the initial admission of a person as a member of the society. Mr. Joshi submitted that once a person is admitted as member of the society, powers under Section 11 of the Act cannot be exercised so as to hold that the admission of such person as member of the society was contrary to the bye laws of the society. Mr. Mr. Joshi submitted that once a person is admitted as member of the society, powers under Section 11 of the Act cannot be exercised so as to hold that the admission of such person as member of the society was contrary to the bye laws of the society. Mr. Joshi submitted that if the managing committee or the general body of the society as a whole decides to admit any person as a member of the society, even if it is found to be contrary to the bye laws, decision of the managing committee or the general body of the society could be the subject matter of challenge by appropriate remedy envisaged in the Act and person inducted as a member cannot be removed as a member in exercise of powers under Section 11 of the Act on the ground that he was inducted contrary to the bye laws. Mr. Joshi has also addressed as regards action being taken mala-fide and for collateral purposes. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Prakash Jani submitted that though bye-law No.5(8) strictly prohibits giving membership of the Bank to individual, managing committee at the relevant time headed by the father of one of the petitioners who happens to be maternal uncle of the another petitioner got the petitioners inducted as members of the Bank contrary to the bye laws. Mr. Jani submitted that in a very fraudulent manner and contrary to the cooperative principles, the then managing committee under the influence of its Chairman passed resolution in a meeting dated 11th March, 2006 for giving membership to the petitioners though such was not the subject within the agenda items circulated amongst the members. Mr. Jani submitted that after 2006, since the managing committee and large number of members of the Bank remained under the influence of the then Chairman, the Registrar could not notice the gross illegality committed in the matter of giving membership to the petitioners though they were not qualified to be inducted as members. Mr. Jani submitted that to mislead and misrepresent before the society at large, the petitioners used the forms which were otherwise meant for primary societies to apply for membership of the Bank which would show that the petitioners though knew that they were not eligible to become members of the Bank still used forms meant for primary societies for membership. Mr. Jani submitted that to mislead and misrepresent before the society at large, the petitioners used the forms which were otherwise meant for primary societies to apply for membership of the Bank which would show that the petitioners though knew that they were not eligible to become members of the Bank still used forms meant for primary societies for membership. Mr. Jani submitted that such an act on the part of the petitioners could well be said as misrepresentation and false declaration so as to acquire membership of the society for which they were otherwise not entitled. Mr. Jani submitted that when the Registrar came to know about such facts, the action under section 23 and 11 of the Act are initiated and the registrar being responsible to ensure that the cooperative societies function as required by law, has jurisdiction to take action under Sections 23 and 11 of the Act so as to see that a person not qualified to be member of the Bank is not permitted to exercise his right as member of the Bank or in any way be continued as member of the Bank. Mr. Jani submitted that the petitioners have approached this court at show cause notice stage and have failed to point out that there is inherent lack of jurisdiction with the registrar in taking action under Section 23 and 11 of the Act. Mr. Jani submitted that whether what is stated in the application could be termed as false declaration so as to warrant action under Section 23 of the Act or whether the admission of petitioners as members of the Bank is legal could well be decided under section 11 of the Act and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no jurisdiction with the Registrar to initiate action under Sections 11 and 23 of the Act and it is always open to the petitioners to raise the objection even as regards jurisdiction of the Registrar before the Registrar while opposing the impugned show cause notices. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. N.K. Pahwa appearing for newly added parties in first two petitions submitted that a person who has fraudulently and by misrepresentation got membership in the Bank has no right to contend that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide the question as regards his membership. Mr. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. N.K. Pahwa appearing for newly added parties in first two petitions submitted that a person who has fraudulently and by misrepresentation got membership in the Bank has no right to contend that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide the question as regards his membership. Mr. Pahwa submitted that such person may not be permitted to invoke the equity jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Pahwa submitted that to decide a question whether on false declaration, a person has acquired membership is within the domain of the Registrar under Section 23 of the Act and therefore, this Court may not entertain the petitions at this stage. 7. The Court having heard learned advocates for the parties finds that two different actions are initiated, one under Section 23(1) and another under Section 11 of the Act, by the concerned authorities to decide the question concerning the membership acquired by the petitioners of the Bank. 8. The questions raised are as regards the jurisdiction of the authorities in initiating such actions by the impugned notices. 9. What is not in dispute is that the petitioners were inducted as individual members of the Bank and when they were inducted as such members, there was complete prohibition as provided in Byelaw No.5(8) of the bye-laws of the Bank to induct an individual as member of the Bank. However, in spite of such prohibition, the petitioners were inducted as individual members of the Bank. Mr. Jani and Mr. Pahwa submitted that such induction of the petitioner as individual members of the Bank was by the then Managing committee under the Chairmanship of the father of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.19842 of 2015, who was also maternal uncle of petitioner of Special Civil Application No.19834 of 2015, who entertained the applications of the petitioners and by resolution passed without the subject on agenda allowed the petitioners to be individual members of the Bank. Their admission as individual members is seen as de hors the bye-laws and by false declaration and misrepresentation for exercise of the powers under Sections 11 and 23 of the Act by the concerned authorities. 10. Mr. Their admission as individual members is seen as de hors the bye-laws and by false declaration and misrepresentation for exercise of the powers under Sections 11 and 23 of the Act by the concerned authorities. 10. Mr. Joshi, however submitted that the question which could be decided by the Registrar under Section 11 is only about initial admission of a person as member who is supposed to sign the application either for the purpose of formation or registration or continuance of the society or about admission at any subsequent stage when any person is refused membership and such person approaches him for such purpose. Mr. Joshi submitted as regards exercise of powers under Section 23 of the Act that when the declaration filed by a person for seeking membership is alleged to be false, the Registrar can exercise such powers under Section 23. Mr. Joshi submitted that the allegation is not of making false declaration to become member but the allegation is about acquiring the membership by the petitioners contrary to the bye-laws and such issue therefore, would not fall in Section 23 of the Act. 11. On the question about the exercise of powers under Section 11 of the Act, reliance is placed on oral order dated 10.12.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1194 of 2014, especially the observations made in para 6 to 8, which read as under:- 6. Mr. Thakore next contended that the District Registrar under Section 11 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act) has passed the order in favour of the predecessors in title of the appellants whereby they were permitted to transfer the property, including the share certificate, in favour of the appellants. He submitted that based on the said order of the District Registrar, the appellants had purchased the property. Nobody has challenged the order of the District Registrar dated 5.12.2013 before the higher forum. It was, therefore, submitted that under these circumstances, it cannot be said that acquiring of the rights in the property by the appellants is under cloud or that the permission of the society was required to be obtained. 7. Nobody has challenged the order of the District Registrar dated 5.12.2013 before the higher forum. It was, therefore, submitted that under these circumstances, it cannot be said that acquiring of the rights in the property by the appellants is under cloud or that the permission of the society was required to be obtained. 7. Perusal of the order dated 5.12.2013 shows that the District Registrar has exercised the power under Section 11 of the Act for permitting the transfer of the share certificate in favour of the petitioners but the relevant aspect is that in normal circumstance, Section 11 of the Act would be attracted only when one has applied to become member and the society has declined to the person concerned to be admitted as a member and the dispute has arisen which may be required to be adjudicated by the District Registrar under Section 11 of the Act. As the order dated 5.12.2013 was not under challenge, final opinion cannot be expressed but, it prima facie appears that the same is based on the affidavit filed by the original member that no office bearers of the society are traceable. Such affidavit even if was to be accepted by the District Registrar, he ought to give opportunity of hearing to the society and thereafter, the matter could be considered. In the order, there is no reference in this regard. Further, copy is forwarded to the President/ Secretary of the society. If society was not in existence, there was no question of forwarding the copy also. 8. Further, as observed by us hereinabove, whether power could be exercised under Section 11 of the Act or not in absence of any dispute is also an aspect to be considered while examining the legality and validity of the order passed by the District Registrar. We may not express any opinion on the said aspect since such aspect may be required to be examined in the proceedings if not directly but indirectly when the rights of the parties in the property are to be further considered at the time of the suit. Suffice it to observe that the rights and contentions of both the sides in the civil suit, which is pending before learned Nominee, shall remain open. Suffice it to observe that the rights and contentions of both the sides in the civil suit, which is pending before learned Nominee, shall remain open. In the said case, Hon’ble Division Bench while examining the order passed under Section 11 permitting transfer of property, including share certificate, in favour of the appellants therein, made the abovereferred observations. However, from the above observations, it could not be said that there was a conclusive pronouncement on the question as regards exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 for determination of the membership of the society. 12. It is a different matter that a resolution of the society could be challenged by any member under Section 96 before the Board of Nominee. Simply because the resolution of the society could be challenged under Section 96, it is no ground to say that the Registrar has no jurisdiction or powers under Section 11 to decide the question as regards the membership of the society. On examination of the question as regards membership of the society, if it is found that the person who has got membership contrary to the bye-laws of the society, the Registrar is not estopped from declaring that the membership acquired is no membership in the eye of law. Non challenge of the resolution passed by the Society by any member would not come in the way of the Registrar in exercising the powers under Section 11 of the Act because remedy available under Section 96 is different than the powers to be exercised under Section 11 of the Act. Mr. Joshi, however, submitted that to induct anybody as member in the society by the Managing Committee of the Society is a private affair of the society and the decision taken for such purpose by the resolution is final unless set aside by the competent forum under Section 96 of the Act and the Registrar would not function to supervise even such private affairs of the society under the guise of exercising the powers under Section 11 of the Act. Such contention however cannot be accepted inasmuch as, as stated above, remedy under Section 96 is different than the powers to be exercised under Section 11. 13. In the case of Sardarkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Ahmedabad & Ors. Vs. Ramabhai Jethabhai Patel & Ors. Such contention however cannot be accepted inasmuch as, as stated above, remedy under Section 96 is different than the powers to be exercised under Section 11. 13. In the case of Sardarkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Ahmedabad & Ors. Vs. Ramabhai Jethabhai Patel & Ors. Reported in 1984(2) GLR 1213 , while examining the question as to whether in view of the general provisions of Section 96, powers under Section 23 could be exercised, this Court held that in view of the remedy provided under Section 23, when a person is found to have made false declaration, general provision of Section 96 for deciding such dispute would get excluded. The Court, however, observed that the dispute pertaining to the alleged misrepresentation or false declaration would not be covered under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, over and above what is provided in Section 23 of the Act, if a person is found to have acquired membership of the society de hors the bye-laws, the Registrar is not estopped from exercising the powers under Section 11 of the Act. In fact, if the Scheme of the Act is considered, such power with the Registrar can be read in Section 11 of the Act. In the Act, from the stage of registration of the society, a society on its registration is to function as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and the Registrar is to function for the purpose of the Act, which is mainly to sub-serve the cooperative principles. The Act has provided conditions of registration, power of the Registrar to cancel registration, power to direct amendment in bye-laws, power to make inquiry on the application of the society in respect of a person not qualified to be a member or continue to be a member, power to decide on the membership when a person is refused membership by the society. The Act also provides for restrictions of holding on shares, on transfer of shares or the interest of the members, requirement for approval of the Registrar for expulsion of a member, formation/ constitution of the Managing Committee of the Society, for reservation of seats on the committees of the societies and considering the importance of large scale cooperative activities carried out by the specified societies, like the Bank, it has provided for separate Chapter for election to its committee members and for its office bearers by and under the supervision of the Collector. 14. To ensure that the society’s affairs may not fall in the hands of the members not authorized by election, the Act has also made provision for appointment of custodian till newly elected committee takes charge. Likewise, it is also provided for super-session of the committee by the Registrar on finding that the society has committed persistent defaults in performance of its duties and on other grounds available under the Act. It has also made provision for winding up of the society and for appointment of Liquidator to perform all functions required for concluding winding up proceedings under the supervision of the Registrar. The Act has also given powers to the Registrar to give directions in public interest for securing proper implementation of the Co-operative production and for Coordination of the cooperative activities for any society. It has also provided for appellate and revisional powers of the Registrar and the State Government to ensure that the affairs of the society are regulated as required by the provisions of the Act. Thus, within the regulatory powers available with the Registrar for due compliance of the provisions of the Act by the Society and to ensure that the affairs of the Society are conducted strictly as per its bye-laws (the constitution), Section 11 is one of such powers available to the Registrar to hold that no unqualified person be allowed as member of the society and if allowed, be not continued as such in the interest of the society. If such power of the Registrar is not read in Section 11, the persons responsible for admission of the unqualified persons as members of the society will be able to frustrate the very constitution of the society and the purpose of the Act, not only by support of such unqualified persons but also by allowing such unqualified persons to run even the affairs of the Society. The Court, therefore, finds that the Registrar has jurisdiction to decide on the questions about membership of the society in exercise of the powers under Section 11 of the Act and therefore, it cannot be said that the notice issued under Section 11 of the Act is without jurisdiction. It is by now settled position of law that only when a case is made out of total lack of jurisdiction with the authority in issuing show cause notice, the Court may entertain the petition at the stage of show cause notice in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. In the case of Social Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para 5 as under:- 5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted. 16. In light of above and when the Court does not find that there is total lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Registrar in issuing show cause notice under Section 11 of the Act, the allegation that the action taken is mala-fide and for collateral purposes would not weigh with the Court to entertain the petition at the stage of show cause notice. 17. Now, as regards the action initiated under Section 23 of the Act, it is required to note that the premise for such action, as stated in the show cause notice, is making of application by the petitioners for membership on printed form otherwise meant for primary society. Obviously, there would not be any form wherein the application could be made for individual member. It appears that being aware about such prohibition contained in the bye-law for making any individual as member of the Bank, the petitioners utilized the printed forms required to be filled in by the primary society to become member of the Bank. The petitioners have filled in some of the blanks in such prescribed forms. Such use of printed forms by the petitioners was obviously with an intention to secure admission as member in the Bank. Therefore, whether such form was used to misrepresent before the society so as to term the same as false declaration is a question to be decided by considering the contents filled in the form and on gathering the intention of the petitioners for using such form and filling some blanks which were otherwise meant to be filled in by the primary society and to be signed by the representative of such society. Such aspects can be decided by the Registrar by exercising the powers under Section 23 of the Act. Therefore, it is premature to say that the Registrar has got no jurisdiction or power to issue notice under Section 23 of the Act. 18. Learned advocate Mr. Pahwa would rely on the decision in the case of Vikrambhai Dhirajbhai Patel Vs. A.S. Jog, District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mehsana and Another reported in 1989(2) GLH 415 , to point out that if membership is acquired on false declaration, it is open to the Registrar to exercise powers under Section 23 to remove the member from the society and to discontinue him from membership of the society. 19. Mr. Joshi would however submit that in the said case, the Court held that there was an application made for membership and no declaration was produced before the Society. Mr. Joshi submitted that the Court therein distinguished between making of application and filing of declaration and filing of application for membership could not be construed as declaration. Mr. Joshi submitted that in the present case also, there is no allegation of filing any declaration by the petitioners for acquiring membership of the Bank. The Court, however, finds that it was only after the District Registrar had an opportunity to examine the record of the case and passed order, the Court had an occasion to decide the issue on the aspect of exercise of the powers on allegation of false declaration. Therefore, whether use of form by the petitioners otherwise meant for the primary societies with some blanks filled in to represent that the petitioners could be considered as representative of the primary society or that the contents filled in the forms could be said to be misrepresentation or a false declaration is a matter of fact to be examined and appreciated by the District Registrar. Simply because the application form is used by the petitioners to seek membership is no ground to say that the contents of such application cannot be examined to find out whether it could be said to be a misrepresentation so as to term as false declaration. Simply because the application form is used by the petitioners to seek membership is no ground to say that the contents of such application cannot be examined to find out whether it could be said to be a misrepresentation so as to term as false declaration. The words, ‘or otherwise’ used in Section 23 would signify that in absence of the requirement of filing declaration under the bye-laws, if it is otherwise found that a person applying for membership of the society has made false declaration to secure membership of the society, the Registrar can certainly exercise the powers under Section 23 of the Act so as to take away the membership of such person. Therefore, it is within the domain of the Registrar to examine whether there was either misrepresentation so as to term it as a false declaration or there was a clear-cut false declaration made just with a view to secure membership of the society though not available under the bye-laws and for such purpose, if notice is issued under Section 23 of the Act, it is issued without jurisdiction. 20. Mr. Joshi however would rely upon the decision of learned Single Judge in the case of Narendrabhai Maganbhai Patel Vs. District Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Vadodara reported in 2010(4) GLR 3092 so as to point out that as held by the Court therein, if the allegations are that the persons are admitted as members in contravention of the bye-laws, only remedy is available under Section 96 to challenge the resolution passed by the society and remedy under Section 23 could not be resorted to. The Court, however, finds that in the premise of the impugned show cause notice, alleging acquisition of membership by misrepresentation or false declaration, the decision in the said case will have no application to the facts of the present case. 21. In above such view of the matter, the Court finds that there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction with the Registrar to issue the show cause notice to the petitioners. 22. Mr. 21. In above such view of the matter, the Court finds that there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction with the Registrar to issue the show cause notice to the petitioners. 22. Mr. Joshi however drew the attention of the Court to the communication dated 3.12.2015 addressed by the District Registrar to the State Registrar, a copy whereof is placed at Annexure-C of Civil Application No.13138 of 2015 filed by the petitioner seeking to take action against the District Registrar for overreaching the process of the Court by submitting a proposal dated 3.12.2015 to the State Registrar for taking necessary action under Section 11 of the Act and submitted that when the Registrar himself is of the opinion that the powers could be exercised only under Section 11 of the Act, the Registrar could be said to have dropped the notices issued under Section 23 of the Act and therefore, the District Registrar should be prohibited from taking any further action based on such show cause notice. 23. The Court however finds from the said communication that as per the oral discussion with his advocate in the High Court, he recommended for taking action under Section 11 of the Act. However, such communication would not be a ground to hold that the Registrar has no power to issue show cause notice under Section 23 of the Act. Though the Registrar has sent such recommendation, the Registrar has still not dropped the proceedings of the show cause notice issued under Section 23 of the Act. On such ground, therefore, the show cause notice issued by the Registrar cannot be quashed nor even the Court finds that the Registrar had intentionally done something so as to overreach the process of the Court and therefore, there is no question of initiating any action against the Registrar for making proposal vide communication dated 3.12.2015 to the State Registrar to initiate action under Section 11 of the Court. The Civil Application No.13138 of 2015 is thus required to be rejected. 24. Mr. Joshi also submitted that after the petitioners were inducted as members in the year 2006, suddenly at the time of election, powers under Section 11 and Section 23 of the Act are being exercised and exercise of such powers is maliciously and fraudulently undertaken. The Civil Application No.13138 of 2015 is thus required to be rejected. 24. Mr. Joshi also submitted that after the petitioners were inducted as members in the year 2006, suddenly at the time of election, powers under Section 11 and Section 23 of the Act are being exercised and exercise of such powers is maliciously and fraudulently undertaken. He relies on the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 119 of the judgment in the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1986) 1 SCC 133 . Para 119 reads as under:- 119. Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end design. There is a distinction between exercise of power in good faith and misuse in bad faith. The former arises when an authority misuses its power in breach of law, say, by taking into account bona fide, and with best of intentions, some extraneous matters or by ignoring relevant matters. That would render the impugned act or order ultra vires. It would be a case of fraud on powers. The misuse in bad faith arises when the power is exercised for an improper motive, say, to satisfy a private or personal grudge or for wreaking vengeance of a Minister as in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, (1964) 4 SCR 733 : ( AIR 1964 SC 733 ). A power is exercised maliciously if its repository is motivated by personal animosity towards those who are directly affected by its exercise. Use of a power for an 'alien' purpose other than the one for which the power is conferred is mala-fide use of that power. Same is the position when an order is made for a purpose other than that which finds place in the order. The ulterior or alien purpose clearly speaks of the misuse of the power and it was observed as early as in 1904 by Lord Lindley in General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v. Overtown, 1904 AC 515, that there is a condition implied in this as well as in other instruments which create powers, namely, that the powers shall be used bona fide for the purpose for which they are conferred. It was said by Warrington, C.J. in Short v. Poole Corporation, (1926) 1 Ch 66 that:- "No public body can be regarded as having statutory authority to act in bad faith or from corrupt motives, and any action purporting to be of that body, but proved to be committed in bad faith or from corrupt motives, would certainly be held to be inoperative." In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, Lord Denning, LJ. said:- "No judgment of a Court, no order of Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything." See also, in Lazarus case at p. 722 per Lord Parker, C.J. "Fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity." All these three English decisions have been cited with approval by this Court in Pratap Singh's case. 25. However, in the facts of each case, the Court is to decide whether the authorities which are otherwise entitled to exercise powers under the provisions of the Act could be estopped from exercising such powers. For the petitioners, it may be viewed as malicious and fraudulent exercise of powers by the Registrar as such powers are being exercised at the time when the elections are due. However, the Court would not ignore the contentions raised by other side on behalf of the respondents that the then Managing Committee headed by none other than the father of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.19842 of 2015 and maternal uncle of petitioner of Special Civil Application No.19834 of 2015 as Chairman of the society could defy the bye-laws for induction of his near and dear relatives- the petitioners as members of the Bank. It is urged on behalf of the respondents that if by fraudulent manner and in defiance of the constitution (bye-laws of the society), the petitioners could get membership of the Bank, not only delay would come in the way of the authorities to exercise powers under the Act but such persons have no right to contend that the authorities are maliciously and fraudulently exercising the powers. The Court finds that since the actions initiated by the authorities are within the jurisdiction available to them under Section 11 and Section 23 of the Act, no interference at this stage is called for in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 26. The Court finds that since the actions initiated by the authorities are within the jurisdiction available to them under Section 11 and Section 23 of the Act, no interference at this stage is called for in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 26. Since the Court has taken the view that the authorities are well within their jurisdiction to issue the show cause notices and no interference at this stage is called, other judgments cited by learned advocates appearing for the respondents are not required to be considered. 27. In view of above, the petitions are rejected. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Civil Application No. 13138 of 2015 is also rejected. 28. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Desai requests to extend the interim relief granted in first two matters to avail of remedy of appeal against the present judgment and to provide sufficient time to represent the case before the concerned authority. Learned advocates appearing for the other side objected to grant of such request made by Mr. Desai. 29. In the facts of the case, since the Court has taken a view that there is jurisdiction available with the concerned authority to issue notices under Section 11 and Section 23 of the Act, the request made by Mr. Desai cannot be accepted and hence such request is rejected.