- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We have heard the counsel on both sides.
(3.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court, Panaji Bench, dated April 26, 1996 made, in W. P. No. 145 of 1996. It is not necessary to dilate upon the entire controversy that has arisen between the parties. Suffice it to state that on September 20, 1996, this Court, after hearing all the counsel, passed the following as: "It is now an admitted position that the appellant-Bank is neither National Co-operative Society, nor Statewide notified Co-operative Society falling under Section 35 of Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. In that perspective the only procedure for conducting the election to other Societies is as per Paragraph 8 of the Schedule which envisages conducting of elections in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. It is not in dispute that the General Body of the Society resolved to adopt paragraphs 2 to 7 of the Schedule for conducting elections to the society and resolution to that effect was passed and also the Bye-laws were amended. The area of controversy is whether the amended Bye-laws have been approved by the Registrar. The High Court has proceeded on the premise that the Registrar must have approved the Bye-laws and on that premise directed the respondent to conduct the election. Unless the Bye-laws are approved by the Registrar, they do not become effective. Resultantly any election conducted in transgression of the statutory rules would admittedly become invalid. Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned counsel for the Registrar, is directed to file an affidavit whether the Bye-laws have been approved by the Registrar, or not." ;