SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is one of the Directors of the Kaithal District Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Primary Cooperative Society'), has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the resolution dated 5.8.2008 passed by the Board of Directors of the Primary Cooperative Society nominating respondent No. 5 as a representative of the said Society to participate in the election of the Haryana State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited (respondent No. 3 herein) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Apex Society').
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the Board of Directors of the Primary Cooperative Society consists of ten members, out of which, seven are elected members and three are nominated members. Since the Primary Cooperative Society is the member of the Apex Society, therefore, the Primary Society can send one representative for participating in the election of the Board of Directors of the Apex Society. Consequently, the Apex Society vide letter dated 11.7.2008 (Annexure P1) asked all the members Primary Cooperative Society to appoint their representative for the election of Board of Directors of the Apex Society. In pursuance of that, the respondent-Primary Cooperative Society passed the resolution 5.8.2008 authorising respondent No. 5 as its representative for participation in the election of the Board of Directors of the Apex Society. It is the case of the petitioner that the said representation was not passed in accordance with the requirement of the provisions of Rule 20 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). According to the said rule, no member of the Committee of a Co- operative Society shall be appointed to vote or participate in the affairs of the Apex Society unless the resolution is passed by two-third members of the Committee of a Primary Cooperative Society. It is contended that in the instant case the said resolution was passed appointing respondent No. 5 as a representative only by five persons out of nine present in the meeting. Therefore, the passing of the said resolution was contrary to the aforesaid Rules as it was not passed by 2/3rd majority. It has also been contended that even otherwise the nominated members, who were three in numbers and participated in the said meeting, were not having a right to vote at the time of passing of the said resolution. Therefore, the said resolution was not even passed by a simple majority. It has been further alleged that the said resolution was passed under the political pressure of Shri Dilu Ram, MLA, Guhla (respondent No. 6 herein) as respondent No. 5 is his son.
(3.) ON September 02, 2008, notice of motion was issued and separate written statements have been filed on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 4, some preliminary objections have been raised about the maintainability of the petition. It has been alleged that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under the Haryana Co- operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as he has a right to challenge the impugned resolution by filing a petition under Section 27 of the Act which empowers the Registrar to rescind any resolution of a Managing Committee of Co-operative Society, if the same is in excess of the powers conferred by the Act, rules or bye-laws or the execution of the resolution will be contrary to the interest of the society or the interest of the members thereof or is likely to cause waste or damage of the funds of the society. Against the order of the Registrar, the petitioner has further the remedy of appeal under Section 114 and revision under Section 115 of the Act.;