Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD on the stay application.
(2.) MR . Kamlakar Sharma Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Joshi has submitted that the order dated 6.7.2015 passed by the Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur Division, Jaipur appointing an Administrator to the Rajasthan Urban Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter 'the Cooperative Bank'), a society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001') superseding its Board of Directors is in contravention of section 30 of the Act of 2001. It has been submitted that the said order is violative of Rule 36 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 2003') which requires an opportunity of hearing to the Board of Directors prior to its supersession. It has been further submitted that the impugned order dated 6.7.2015 has been passed on a misapprehension that it was so warranted under the award dated 26.6.2015 passed in pursuance to the Judgment dated 11.2.2015 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1287/2014. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench could be invoked, as it was vide order dated 30.4.2015 for supersession of the Board of Directors and for appointing an Administrator only till the passing of the award, which was so passed on 26.6.2015 - not thereafter. It has been submitted that in the award dated 26.6.2015 the Arbitrator has specifically found on issue No. 3 before him that the processes for the election of the Board of Directors of the Cooperative Bank during the elections of 2014 were duly adhered to and nothing improper or illegal was attributable thereto. It has been submitted that following the decision of the Administrator over the Cooperative Bank on 27.11.2008 invoking the powers of the Board under Clause 9(b)(v) of the Bye -laws of the Cooperative Bank - registered society, the minimum share capital rendering a member eligible to vote at an election of the Cooperative Bank was 150 shares of Rs. 100/ - each and the said resolution had been duly accepted by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. It has been submitted that in any event the private respondents were inactive members of the Cooperative Bank and had not participated in the affairs of the society. By way of an additional affidavit it has been pointed out that at no point between 1961 and 2014 more than 110 members of the Cooperative Bank ever participated in the Annual General Meeting and hence to set up a case based on the invalidity of the elections of the Cooperative Bank in 2009 and 2014 for reasons of unlawful exclusion of the private respondents and others is wholly mischievous and a mere attempt to embarrass the Board of Directors and prejudice the lawful functioning of the Cooperative Bank. Mr. Rajendra Prasad - learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1287/2014 had an occasion to consider the issue of exclusion of members of the Cooperative Bank in the elections of the Board of Directors in the year 2009 and 2014. In para 12 of its Judgment rendered on 11.2.2015 after recording the contentions of the parties, the Judgment of the learned Single Judge holding the challenge to the elections of 2009 as infructuous, was set aside and it was clearly recorded that the Single Judge has failed to appreciate that 4500 odd members were ousted and deprived from casting their votes at the elections of Board of Directors of the Cooperative Bank "on the false pretext" of their failing to contribute Rs. 15,000/ - each as share capital. It was further held that the administrative decision of the then Administrator of the Cooperative Bank seeking to enhance the share capital as also mandatorily the minimum shareholding of the members was not carried out as per the Bye -laws nor the decision had any approval of the Registrar of the Societies consequent to which it could neither have been implemented nor any member who had failed to acquire 150 shares of the face value of Rs. 100/ - each could not have been held to be a defaulter and thus deprived of his voting rights in the 2009/2014 election of the Board of Directors. It has been submitted that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was on the findings of the Hon'ble Division Bench to consider appointing an Administrator of the Society during the pendency of the challenge to the elections of 2014 before the Arbitrator in terms of the Act of 2001. The Division Bench further directed that the Arbitrator seized of the dispute with regard to the elections of the Board of Directors of the Bank in 2014 would decide the dispute before him within a period of three months taking note of the observations in the Judgment.
(3.) THE learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that following the aforesaid Judgment, the Board of Directors of the Cooperative Bank elected in 2014 were superseded and an Administrator appointed on 30.4.2015. Thereafter, the Arbitrator seized of the dispute qua the elections of the Rajasthan Urban Cooperative Limited in 2014 on issue No. 1 pertaining to the wrongful exclusion of thousands of members from voting rights at the elections of 2014 concluded that such voters could not have been excluded on the plain language of clause 26(1) of the Bye -laws of the Bank as they were members of the society and entitled to cast votes, particularly as Clause 26(1) aforesaid had not been amended/modified by the Cooperative Bank as per the Bye -laws and the amendment also was thus not obviously approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.;