Gopi Nato, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge dated 19th May, 1972 allowing a writ peti tion. The petition challenged a resolution passed by the Managing Committee, District Co-operative Bank Ltd., removing the peti tioner-respondent from the office of a member as also the office of Chairman of that Committee. The District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mainpuri and one Sri Kishan Murari Misra who were opposite parties in the writ petition are now appellants in the appeal. Sri Rajendra Singh who was the petitioner in the writ petition is the main respondent in the appeal. The other opposite parties of the writ petition are also arrayed as respondents in the appeal.
(2.) THE facts leading up to the petition giving rise to the appeal are as follows:- There is a co-operative society named Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, hereinafter to be referred as Primary Society, in the district of Mainpuri. This Society (Samiti) was the member of another Co-operative Society known as the District Co-operative Bank Mainpuri, hereinafter referred to as the Bank which was a Central Co-operative Bank, the main object of which was to lend money to Co-operative Societies which were its ordi nary members. The petitioner-respondent is a delegate from the Primary Society was elected a member of the Committee of Management of the Bank. An election was held on 30th December, 1969, for the office of the Director of the Bank from amongst the Members of the Committee of Manage ment The petitioner-respondent contested the election and was elected a Director on the aforeaid date. He was thereby declared a President of the Bank as he commanded a majority amongst the elected Directors. The petitioner-respondent accordingly became the Chairman of the Committee of manage ment and started functioning as such. On the 16th October, 1971 an agenda was cir culated for convening a meeting on the 21st October, 1971 to consider a proposal for the removal of the petitioner respondent from the office of the Chairman on the ground that he was disqualified for the membership of the Committee of Management under Rule 453 of the U. P. Co- operative Socie ties Rules. Out of the several grounds of disqualification mentioned, one was that he being a defaulter of his primary Society could not contest an election to the Mem bership of the Committee of Management. His election as such was in contravention of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules and the bye laws of the Bank. A notice con taining the agenda was, according to the ap pellant, sent to the petitioner-respondent through a peon which he read but return ed without making any endorsement about its receipt. The appellants stated in the counter-affidavit that as a measure of pre caution the notice of the meeting was com municated to the petitioner by two separate telegrams dated 17th October, 1971 to his local and permanent addresses and the agenda was sent to him by registered post acknowledgment due on the 19th October, 1971, 18th October, being a holiday. The allegations against the petitioner were that he was a defaulter to the Primary Society in the sum of Rs. 200/- and had not paid the same in spite of a demand notice given to him on 1st April, 1969. A meeting of the Committee of Management was held on the 21st October, 1971, as scheduled. An objection raised on behalf of the supporters of the petitioner-respondent that the notice was not duly served on the petitioner-res pondent was overruled. A resolution was, thereafter, passed that the petitioner- respon dent was disqualified for Membership of the Committee of Management as he was a de faulter to the primary society at the time of his election. The Committee further re solved that the petitioner- respondent being disqualified under Rule 453-K of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules and bye-law No. (10) Ta of the Bye laws of the Bank could not hold the office of Chairman. The Com mittee accordingly resolved that he be re moved from the office of the Chairman. This action was taken under Rule 454 of the Co operative Societies Rules which provides that ft shall be the duty of the Committee of Management of a Co-operative Society to en sure that no person incurring any of the dis qualifications (which means the disqualifica tions mention in Rule 453) continues to hold office of the Committee of Management. The petitioner-respondent challeng ed this resolution, inter alia, on the grounds that be was not a defaulter to the Primary Society, that no notice as required by the provisions of Rule 454 of the Co- operative Societies Rules was served on him before the meeting and the registered letter reached him on the 27th October, 1971 long after the meeting had been held and the resolution passed and that he was not disqualified either under Rule 453-K of the Rules or Bye-laws (10) Ta of the Bank, in that both these pro visions relate to a default to the Bank and not to the Primary Society.
(3.) THE learned Single lodge quashed the impugned resolution on the ground that a default to the Primary Society was not a disqualification for the Membership of the Committee of Management under Rule 453 (1) (k) of the Rules. That rule reads:- "No person shall be eligible to be or to continue as a member of the Committee of Management of any Co-operative Society for ............ .................. ..................... ............................ ...................................... (k) he is in default (at least for a period of six months) to the Society in respect of any loan or loans taken by him." The learned Single Judge held that this sub-clause refers only to loans which are due by a member of the Society of whose Managing Committee he is a member. It does not contemplate a case where the member is in arrears towards the Society whose delegate he is. The petitioner being no defaulter to the Bank was according to the learned Single Judge not disqualified to become a member of the Committee of Management.;