- (1.) VICE- Chairman of Limited Liability Society has invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issue of a writ of mandamus to opposite parties to hold the election of the Committee of Management or to reconstitute the committee in accordance with the bye laws and rules framed under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.
(2.) THE Society was admittedly founded in 1936 and was registered as such. On 30-9-1977 an Administrator was appointed under sub section (4) of Section 29 of the Act as the Society failed to amend its bye laws and bring it in conformity with model bye laws. Since then neither the elections have been held nor the committee of management has been reconstituted. In counter affidavit it has been stated that general meeting of the society was called twice but for want of quorum no progress could be made. It is also averred that a meeting was called for amending the bye laws in April, 1982 but the same could not be held for want of quorum. According to counter affidavit as bye laws could not be amended there was no question of holding election or reconstitution of the Society as claimed by the petitioner. It, therefore, stands admitted that since 1977 when committee of management was superseded and an Administrator was appointed neither the bye laws of the society had been amended nor any election for constitution to the committee of management has taken place. The reason for the same as explained has been mentioned above. It is not disputed that the society did not amend its bye laws after enforcement of U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and this was the reason for supersession of the society. Sub-section (3) of section 131 requires every co operative society to delete or amend such bye laws as are inconsisent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and to make such further bye laws as may be necessary having regard to the provisions of the Act and the rules. Sub section (4) empowers the Registrar in default of action on the part of any co operative society to act under sub section (3) to make necessary amendment including detections and additions in the bye laws of the society. Procedure for amendment of byelaws is given in section 14 of the Act. Sub section (1) empowers the Registrar to amend the byelaws either on representation of a member of a co operative society or otherwise provided he is satisfied that amendment in the byelaws is necessary or desirable in the interests of such society or in public interest. Sub section (2) empowers the Registrar to amend the byelaws if the society does not do so despite grant of an opportunity. Rule 24 provides that the amendment shall be made by a society at a general meeting called for the purpose by a resolution of at least two thirds of the members of the general body of the society present and voting. An exception is made, however, by the proviso in case of model byelaws which have been previously approved by the Registrar. It permits the resolution to be passed by a simple majority only. Rule 26 prescribes the quorum for such meeting. In respect of a limited liability society, the quorum is one third of total number of the general body. Proviso to this sub rule permits the Registrar to reduce it to one fifth in case requisite quorum cannot be obtained. The second proviso permits the Registrar to reduce this quorum further by one seventh in case meeting is for adopting model byelaws or amendments previously approved by the Registrar. A reading of these provisions leave no room for doubt that the opposite parties did not comply with procedure as provided in Act or Rules. The meeting in April, 1982 was held for amending byelaws. According to counter affidavit total membership of Society is 112 whereas only 12 members were present and as this was not quorum as provided in Rules the byelaws could not be adopted. Assuming it to be so the opposite parties were required to proceed under provisos and reduce the quorum to one fifth or one seventh and inform the member accordingly. As this was not done the pretext taken by them for not amending the byelaws or holding the election for reconstitution of committee cannot be upheld. Further, sub section (6) of section 29 makes it abundantly clear that no Administrator could continue in Society after 30-6-1983. This sub section casts a duty on administrator to arrange for reconstitution of committee of management in accordance with the provisions of the Act within one year from the date of appointment as Administrator. The proviso to this sub section reads as under : (1) Provided that an Administrator, referred to in the proviso to clause (b) of sub section (4), shall arrange for reconstitution of the Committee of Management within one year of his initial appointment or upto June 30, 1983, whichever be later ; (2)...... (3)......
(3.) ACCORDING to this proviso an Administrator should have taken steps to reconstitute the committee within one year of his initial appointment. In any case, the election could not have been delayed beyond 30-6-1983. The opposite parties, therefore, acted against the manadatory provisions of the Act in continuing the Administrator and not holding the election on one pretext or the other. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to opposite parties to take steps to get the byelaws amended in accordance with law and the procedure provided in Rule 24 and on quorum as provided in Rule 26 within a month from the date a copy of the order is produced before them. After amending the byelaws the opposite parties shall further reconstitute committee of management as provided under the Act and the Rules within a period of six weeks from the date the byelaws are amended. The petitioner shall be entitled to its costs. Petition allowed.;