Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) A substantial question of law, whether a depositor in a co -operative bank is a creditor and comes within the ambit of the provisions of Section 13(9) of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), or not, has arisen in this case for the determination of which it was admitted to Division Bench.
(2.) THE Petitioners had their accounts with the Tarn Taran Central Co -operative Bank Ltd., Tarn Taran, district Amritsar, which was registered as a co -operative Society under the provisions of the Act. There was another bank known as the Amritsar Central Co -operative Bank Ltd., Amritsar, which was also registered as a Society under the Act. By order dated 17th of August, 1979, copy annexure P. 3, the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, exercising the powers of Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Punjab, in exercise of powers under Section 13(8)(iii) and 13(8)(b)(i) of the Act, ordered the amalgamation of the two banks and the new amalgamated bank was named as the Amritsar Central Co -operative Bank Ltd., Amritsar and its area of operation was to be the district of Amritsar. All other relevant details have been mentioned in the order annexure P. 3. The aforesaid order of amalgamation, Annexure P. 3, has been challenged by the Petitioners in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the sole ground that they being creditors were covered by Section 13(9) of the Act and therefore, were entitled to a notice of the proposed amalgamation as contained therein so that they could file objections It is stated that no notice was issued to them and therefore, they could not file objections with the result that the order of amalgamation deserve to be quashed.
(3.) THE writ petition is opposed by the State of Punjab as also by the Amritsar Central Co operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), on the ground that the order of amalgamation was issued after following the proper procedure insofar as it was possible on the facts and circumstances of this case and the Petitioners were fully aware of the proposed amalgamation and did not file any objections and that their interest was only to the extent of getting payment of the entire amount deposited by them and no more, which the Bank was prepared to pay even now. It is the stand of the Respondents that the Petitioners are mere depositors and cannot be termed as 'creditors' within the meaning of Section 13(9) of the Act. It was also urged that there is no manifest injustice o prejudice caused to the Petitioners even if there was some infraction of the provisions of the Act and therefore this Court is not bound to interfere under its extraordinary jurisdiction.;