- (1.) THE petitioner is a Direc tor of Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Kanpur, registered under the U. P. -Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. At the meeting of the committee of management of this Society held on 24th June, 1969, the petitioner was appointed as the officiat ing Secretary under Rule 127 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968. On or about 23rd August, 1969, the Dis trict Magistrate, Kanpur acting_ as the ex- officio Chairman of the Society con vened a meeting of the committee of management to be held at 3.00 P. M. on 24th August, 1969 at his own official residence. The meeting was held on this date and was attended by five directors. The petitioner's case is that he along with seven other directors did not attend this meeting. At this meet ing several resolutions were passed. By one resolution one Sri K. B. Khare was appointed as the Secretary of the Society. By another resolution it was resolved that Sri Gulab Chand Jain and Sri Iqbal Bahadur Srivastava were no longer directors of the Society.
(2.) THE petitioner challenges the validity of the meeting on the follow ing grounds:- (i) The District Magistrate could not function as the ex-officio Chairman of the Society on 23rd and 24th August, 1969. (ii) The convening of the meeting at the residence of the District Magis trate was illegal and as such the pro ceedings of the meeting were void. (iii) The Petitioner's appointment as Officiating Secretary could not be termi nated prior to six months from the date of the appointment. (iv) The resolution that two of the directors ceased to be so was unlawful. In Civil Misc. Writ No. 2727 of 1969 (All) (Rajendra Singh v. Registrar) decided on 7-10-1969, I held that the Dis trict Magistrate could validly continue to function as the Chairman so long as a fresh committee of management is not constituted. In the present case, it has not been established that a .fresh com mittee of management had been con stituted till 24th August, 1969. Hence the District Magistrate could validly' function as the Chairman. The meeting held on 24th August, 1969, took place at the office of the District Magistrate which admitted ly meant his own residence. Rule 95 provides that the meeting of the com mittee of management of a co-operative society shall be held only at the head quarters of the society. Clause (n) of Rule 2 defines "the District Co-operative Bank" to mean a central co-operative bank having its head- office at the head quarters of a district. In view of this definition it was alleged that the head-office of a society can be at the headquarters of the district In which a co-operative bank is situate. The res pondent-Bank is a bank situate at Kan pur. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the head quarters of the society was Kanpur. I am unable to agree. The definition of a District Co-operative Bank has been given in order to distinguish inter se the various banks situate in the vari ous districts of the State. Each Dis trict Co-operative Bank was to be established by the name of the head quarters of the district from the other similar co-operative banks but Rule 95 requires the meeting to be held at the headquarters of the society. The head quarters of the society is something en tirely different than the headquarters of a district. This is made clear by Rule 39. Under it, every co-operative society should communicate in writing to the Registrar its complete postal ad dress. The address so communicated Is to mention the name of the district and also the village, town, city and munici pal wards or mohalla, street, house number and postal circle as may be necessary for making the address com plete in all respects. A change of ad dress is to be similarly communicated to the Registrar. This address is regis tered by the Registrar. This would show that the headquarters of the society within the meaning of Rule 95 would be the registered address under Rule 35. The petitioner has stated that the head-office of the respondent society was situate at 43/32 Chowk Sarafa, Kanpur, vide, paragraph 1 of the peti tion. This has been admitted in the counter affidavit. So this place was the headquarters of the society. The re-l sidence of the District Magistrate could not be deemed to be the headquarters of the society. The meeting held at the official residence of the District Magis-'trate was not regular.
(3.) THE meeting was attended by five directors. Under the byelaws of the society the quorum for a meeting is five. In that respect the meeting was regular. The proceedings of the meet ing held on 24th August, 1969, were confirmed by another meeting of the committee of management held on 3rd October, 1969. At this meeting 9 direc tors were present. They unanimously confirmed the proceedings of the pre vious meeting held on 24th August, 1969. It is thus apparent that the pro ceedings of the meeting held on 24th August, 1969 were ratified by the board of directors at a subsequent meeting whose validity has not been challenged in the present writ petition. Thus, the ratification has been by a validly con stituted meeting of the committee of management. In this situation, the ques tion is whether the irregularity in con vening the meeting of the Board at a place other than the headquarters of the society was fatal to its validity.;