V.D.Bhargava, J. - (1.) This is an application on behalf of 28 persons who are members of Sahkari Gram Samiti Limited, Muradnagar, district Meerut. The Society was started for the purpose of running a brick kiln and the prescribed capital of the Society was Rs. 2720/-. So far as the authorised capital of the Society is concerned it is not known nor the counsel for the parties are able to tell what was the authorised capital of the Society. The allegation was that applicant No. 1 was the Sarpanch of the Society and according to the affidavit filed, the affairs of the Society were going on well. According to the applicants there was a general meeting on the 3rd of August 1955 after giving due notice by beat of drum and circulating the agenda and in that meeting out of 46 members 26 members were present who elected office bearers and other necessary business, which is done in the annual general meeting, was done and the applicant No. 1 was re-elected Sarpanch for the next year also. After this election the Society worked well till the middle of December 1955. On the 16th of December 1955 a complaint was lodged to the Assistant Registrar about the working of the Society and the allegations were made in that complaint against the applicant No. 1, Thereafter on the 18th of December 1955 at about 1 p.m. the applicant No. 1 Mukat Lal was summoned with the books of the Society by the Assistant District Cooperative Officer who had come to Muradnagar at the brick kiln of the Society. On reaching there he found that the Assistant District Cooperative Officer and certain other persons who have made the complaint were present including one Sri Murlidhar who had been the Secretary of the Society for some time and who, according to the applicant, had not been elected in the general meeting called on the 3rd of August 1955. The proceeding Books were taken from the applicant No. 1 and the Assistant District Cooperative Officer then and there called a general meeting of the share-holders and decided to elect another Panchayat and to hold another general meeting on the next day. It is alleged that no notice of this meeting was ever circulated to the members of the Society in general or any agenda was circulated according to the usual practice of the Society. The applicants later on came to know that it was the Assistant District Cooperative Officer who had asked these persons to be present on the 18th of December 1955 and he had only informed those members that the meeting would be held on the next day. There was a co-called meeting held on the 19th December 1955. In that meeting, inter alia, new office bearers and the executive commit tee was elected and as many as 52 new members were enrolled. It was alleged that according to the rules new members could be elected if they have been recommended by the members of the Panchayat (Executive Committee) and approved by the general meeting. The complaint of the applicants is that these new members have been admitted without having been recommended by the Panchayat and without any notice being given of the meeting and of the agenda that these members will be elected in that meeting and therefore their election as members was invalid. Since these new members had participated in the meeting of the 19th December 1955 that meeting would also be invalid. It was said that all these proceedings by the Assistant District Cooperative Officer were contrary to Rule 31 of the Rules framed under the Cooperative Societies Act. The applicant No. 1 had submitted an application before the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society for arbitration challenging the validity of the proceedings of the so-called meeting but that application was rejected and thereafter there was a revision to the Deputy Registrar who also dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by that decision and aggrieved by the actions of the Assistant District Cooperative Officer the applicants have come to this Court.
(2.) Counter affidavits have been filed both on behalf of the Assistant Registrar and also on behalf of the Sahkari Samiti Limited, Muradnagar. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Assistant Registrar is of Purshotam Saran Singhal, an Assistant in the office of the Registrar Cooperative Society, Lucknow. Apparently he has no personal knowledge of any of the affairs. He was at Lucknow and all these proceedings had taken place at Muradnagar and possibly he could not have any personal knowledge of he allegations made in the counter affidavit. Most of the allegations have been verified to be true upon information received from the records of the case. No records have been produced before me to enable me to verify whether those allegations made in that affidavit are correct. He has in his affidavit said that the Assistant District Co-operative Officer asked the applicant No. 1 to take the opinion of all the members present about the necessity of a fresh election and to regularise the matter, and it was agreed that a fresh election be held on the 19th of December 1955 and a fresh election of the office bearers was ordered. It was further stated that the applicant No. 1 had signed the proceedings of this meeting as a President. The so-called minute book of the meeting of the 18th December has been produced. It does not show that the petitioner No. 1 had signed as a President nor does it show that the Additional District Cooperative Officer had asked the petitioner No. 1 to take the opinion of the members and this allegation by the deponent cannot be said to be based on the record. In para. 10 of the counter affidavit he has said that proper notices and publicity for the meeting of December 19, 1955 was given. He has further deposed that there is nothing in the rules and regulations that any written agenda should be circulated. I am unable to understand how an Assistant in the office of the Registrar at Lucknow can depose about the fact of a practice being prevalent in the Cooperative Society at Muradnagar, nor any record has been produced by which publicity of notice could have been substantiated. It is nobody's case that a written notice had been issued and if any oral notice by beat of drum was announced there would be no record of it and that allegation by Purshotam Saran does not also seem to be justified. He has been made to swear all sorts of allegations whether they can be based on record or not and no reliance can be placed at all on that counter affidavit.
(3.) Counter affidavit on behalf of the Sahkari Samiti has been filed by one Kailash Chandra Sharma, who is, according to the new election, the Secretary of the Society. He has not controverted the fact that no notice was given for the meeting of the 18th of December 1955. His contention in the affidavit is that since the petitioner No. 1 was present and since the number required for the quorum, i.e. 21 other members, were present, therefore, it was not necessary to issue any notice and the quorum being complete a general meeting of the Society could be held. He has however controverted the allegation about the non-issuing of the notice for the 19th of December 1955.;