Dilip Kumar Seth , J. - (1.) By an order dated 10.5.2000 contained in Annexure 'P2' considering the interest of the members of the Asurali Paikpari S.K.U.S. Kolaghat, District Midnapore, the Board of Administrator was dissolved on the ground that the Board did not arrange election of the Board of Directors. The said notification was issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the authority by sub-section (2) of section 30 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The learned advocate for the petitioners has taken a ground that the General Meeting was held on 10.10.95 and the Board is due to expire on 1st October, 2001. A meeting was held to elect a delegate for the annual general meeting of the apex body. The order was purported to have been issued as a notification. But there is nothing to show that the said order was ever notified or any notification was ever issued, though it relates to the exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of section 30 of the W.B.C.S. Act, 1983. In the absence of notifications under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the W.B.C.S. Act, 1983, this notification issued by the Deputy Secretary, is void ab initio. Inasmuch as when the statute provides for the exercise of a power conferred in a particular manner in law, such power is to be exercised only according to the manner provided and not otherwise. Therefore, the notification should be quashed.
(2.) Mr. Haque, learned advocate for the State prayed for time to produce the notification alleged to have been published in the Official Gazette. But despite such opportunity, he has not been able to find out as to whether any notification was at all issued. He has not made any statement that no notification was issued within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 30 of the said Act. At the same time he was also not stated that any such notification has been issued. He has simply stated that he has not been able to find out the notification. He had referred to three other writ petitions involving similar question and pointed out that the alleged notification was issued, but he has not been able to find out the same.
(3.) The Counsel for the petitioner herein also has pointed out that the question involved in all the four matters are identical and capable of being decided together. He also pointed out that no notification within the meaning of sub- section (2) of section 30 of the Act, in any of these cases was ever issued in exercise of the power under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the said Act.;