S.B.MAJMUDAR - (1.)In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 14 and 19 thereof the petitioners who are Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank and its President respectively seek to challenge two letters-cum-orders annexures A and B issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies Gujarat State respondent No. 1 as well as the Deputy Registrar (C. S.) respondent No.3 respectively. The petitioners contend that the concerned respondents who are exercising statutory powers under the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 hereinafter referred to as the said Act have no power orauthority to issue the impugned orders. They further contend that the said orders have been issued mala fide
(2.)In order to appreciate the aforesaid grievance of the petitioners it is necessary to note a few relevant facts. Petitioner No.1 is a federal co-operative bank. Petitioner No.2 is elected President of the said bank. Petitioner No.1 is a leading district co-operative central bank in the State having the deposits of Rs. 40 crores and odd. As per the bye-laws of the petitioner bank there were vacancies on the Board of Directors with regard to the posts of four directors who were to retire by rotation from the constituency known as Kalol division relating to multipurpose co-operative societies and service co-operative societies and with regard to the post of one director from the constituency of the individual members. On account of the aforesaid vacancies the first petitioner bank declared an election programme to fill up the vacancies in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the rules. The case of the petitioners is that the first respondent at the behest of respondent No 2 State of Gujarat and other leading Congress (1) workers in Mehsana district saw to it that the impugned order at annexure A was issued deputing one Mr. M. B. Vyas as a representative of respondent No.1 to remain present in the meeting of the Board of Directors wherein scrutiny of nomination froms was to be held for the purpose of filling up the aforesaid vacancies. That order is at annexure A and is dated 7-3-1982. It purports to have been issued under the powers vested in the first respondent by sec. 160 of the said Act. The second impugned letter-cum-order is dated 31-8-1982 at annexure B where under certain information was sought for from the petitioner bank by respondent No. 3 herein. So far as the letter at annexure A is concerned the petitioner bank permitted the observer to remain present as according to them they had nothing to hide. But so far as the order at annexure B is concerned before it could be implemented they filed the present petition and obtianed interim relief against implementation of the order at annexure B. Pursuant to the notice issued by this court pending admission the concerned respondents Nos.1 and 3 filed their affidavits-in-reply and thereafter the petition was admitted to final hearing and adinterim relief was ordered to be continued during the pendency of the petition The petitioner has reached final hearing before me today
(3.)Mr. K. G. Vakharia learned Advocate for the petitioners raised the following two contentions in support of the petition :
1 That the impugned orders are passed mala fide and with ulterior motive by the officers of the second respondent who are exercising their powers under the Act and they have passed these orders under the political pressure of Congress (1) workers in Mehsana district who are in a position to prevail upon Congress (1) Government which is running the State of Gujarat at present.

2 Even otherwise the impugned orders are de hors the provisions of the said Act and are totally ultra vires and void. (His Lordship after discussing the material on record regarding the contentions that the impunged orders were passed mala fide and with ulterior motive held that the material on record falls far short of sustaining a finding on these disputed questions of facts one way or the other. In any case this contention raises highly disputed questions of fact which cannot be effectively gone into in the present proceedings on the state of record. His Lordship further observed:)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..