ARUN TANDON, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.P. Gupta, advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9. It is not necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in view of the order proposed to be passed in the present writ petition today.
(2.) THE petitioners, who are two in number, admittedly have been appointed as delegates of District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bulandshahr and as such they become entitled to be one of the members of the electoral collage constituted for the purposes of elections of the Committee of Management of the District Co- operative bank Ltd. Bulandshahr as well as of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, who have been restrained from participating in the election as delegates, have initiated proceedings under Section 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by way of arbitration proceedings before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Arbitrator i.e. the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr while entertaining the arbitral proceedings in exercise of power under Section 71 (3) of the Act has passed the impugned order dated 17th March, 2005 whereby he has restrained the petitioners from exercise powers as delegates including their rights from exercise their franchise in the elections to be held the post of members of the Committee of Management as well as the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Bulandshahr. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the said order virtually amounts to grant of final relief and such order is legally not permissible in the eyes of law. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 6th April, 2005, which has been passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27173 of 2005 (Smt. Usha and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) practically in similar circumstances. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that against the order impugned in the present writ petition an appeal under Section 98(1)(h) of the Act is maintainable. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been admitted as members of the General Body of Sadhan Sahkari Bank Ltd., Bulandshahr by the administrator, who has no authority to do so, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in J.T. 1997 (3), 680 (Sant Raja v. Naagraja). Therefore, this Court may interfere with the order passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr. The respondents have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (4) SCC 697 (Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) for the proposition that the Courts may pass an order amounting to a mandamus at interim stage also.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.;