Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38872 of 2018 Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Swatantra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 31.10.2018 whereby the respondents no.1 & 2 have nominated the respondent no.6 as nominated member in the respondent no.4-Society.
It appears that a 'Motion of No Confidence' was brought against the respondent no.5. Two writ petitions being Writ Petition (C) No.35312 of 2018 (Swadesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others) and Writ Petition (C) No.35482 of 2018 (Shrikant Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others) were filed and an interim order was also granted by this Court on 26.10.2018. Both writ petitions were filed on the ground that 21 days clear notice as contemplated under Rule 458 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 had not been given before initiating the notice of 'No Confidence Motion'. Those writ petitions were allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.11.2018 on the acceptance of the respondents counsel that 21 days notice has not been given.
The High Court while allowing writ petitions further granted opportunity to the members to initiate fresh proceedings, if so required in accordance with law. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 31.10.2018 the respondents no.1 & 2 have nominated the respondent no.6 as nominated member in the respondent no.4-Society. This is being assailed in the present writ petition.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that this nomination was made during the pendency of the earlier two writ petitions in the High Court while the matter was still subjudice and that this has been done only to favour the respondent no.5.
Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1965), however, confers power on the State Government to nominate on the Committee of Management of a Society in which the State Government has subscribed to the share capital of a cooperative society not more than two persons one of whom shall be a Government servant, however, that Government servant shall not vote at an election of an office-bearer of the society. Section 34 of the Act, 1965 reads as under:
"34. Nominees of the Government on the Committee of Management- (1) where the State Government has-
(a) subscribed directly to the share capital of a co-operative society under Chapter VI, or
(b) assisted indirectly in the formation or argumentation of the share capital of a co-operative society as provided in Chapter VI, or
(c) given loans or made advances to a co-operative society or guaranteed the repayment of principal and payment of the interest on debenture issued by a co-operative society or guaranteed the repayment of principal and payment of interest on loans or advances to a co-operative society, the State Government shall have the right to nominate on the Committee of Management of such society not more than two persons one of whom shall be a Government servant, so, however, that the Government servant shall not vote at an election of an office bearer of the society:"
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the cooperative society in question was one to which the Government had subscribed to its share capital and that the Government had a right to nominate at least two persons one of whom shall be a Government servant but the Government servant shall not vote at an election of an office bearer of the society.
The respondent no.6 is not a Government servant but nevertheless he could have been nominated by the State Government, therefore, his appointment cannot be held to be illegal on a mere apprehension of the petitioner that such appointment has been made only to favour the respondent no.5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner when asked whether fresh proceedings have been initiated by the members, he replied in negative which is also supported by Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.
We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 31.10.2018.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 28.11.2018/N Tiwari