DEEPAK SAXENA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of petitions involving identical facts and question of law is being decided by this common order. All the petitioners are holding office of Chairman/ President of District Co -operative Central Bank or District Land Development Bank or similar other societies, registered under the M.P. Co -operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short). In all the cases the respondent No. 1 has passed separate orders under Section 52(4) of the Act, by which the State Government has directed that a nominated member, in most of the cases the Collector of District, is nominated as Chairman of Society and to perform such duties in the Co -operative Society. The description/particulars of petitions, are shown hereunder in a table form so that the picture may be seen at a glance.

(2.) ALL the matters are involving identical set of facts and orders, and are being decided by this common order, the facts are taken from W.P. No. 717/2004 (Deepak Saxena v. State of M.P. and Ors.). Petitioner Deepak Saxena was elected chairman of District co -operative Central Bank, Chhindwara on 27 -3 -2002. Before the election of petitioner as Chairman, he was elected as Director on 21 -3 -2002. Petitioner represents Prathmik Sewa Sahakari Samiti in District Central Co -operative Bank. Normal tenure of the Chairman is 5 years from the date of his election. Petitioner worked as Chairman on the date of impugned order for nearabout 22 months. The District Central co -operative Bank Ltd. Chhindwara is a Co -operative Society and duly registered under the provisions of the Act. Bank is engaged in the business of Banking and other ancillary activities. The State Government and Central Government also enforced various public welfare schemes through the Bank. The Bank was also assigned duty to implement some of the scheme through the primary level societies affiliated to the Bank. To implement aforesaid scheme Bank has invested huge amount to enforce the scheme of State Government and Central Government. Some of the schemes were not profit able, resulting loss to the Bank. The aforesaid schemes were implemented much prior to the election of petitioner as President of the Bank and the loss was continuing since several years. The bank is having its own bye -laws, copy of which is enclosed along with the petition as Annexure P -l. Under clause -21 of the bye -laws, following are ex -officio directors : -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has assailed the order, mainly on following grounds: -