IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP NO.18328 of 2008 Date of Decision:22.10.2008. Parminder Kaur and others ..........Petitioners. Versus Addl. Registrar(Credit)Co-op.Societies Haryana and others. ..........Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.RS Tacoria,Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH,J. Petitioners-four in number, who are elected Directors of the Managing Committee of respondent no.4- Kurukshetra District Primary Co- operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as Primary Bank) have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the resolution no.11 dated 16.5.2008 (Annexure P/5) passed in the 3rd meeting of the Board of Directors of the Primary Bank; impugned voter list dated 6.10.2008 (Annexure P/9) issued for election of Board of Directors of respondent no.3- The Haryana State Co-op. Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the Apex Bank); and election programme dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure P/10) issued by respondent no.2- Joint Registrar (General) Coop. Societies Haryana, Panchkula (Returning Officer) for election of the Board of Directors of the Apex Bank. CWP NO.18328 of 2008 2 It is submitted by the petitioners that Directors of Primary Bank-respondent no.4, in their meeting held on 16.5.2008 vide resolution no.10 had unanimously resolved that Parminder Kaur-petitioner no.1 shall participate in the General Body meeting of the Apex Bank to be held on 24.5.2008 and thereafter under political pressure and for mala fide reasons another resolution no.11 was passed in the same meeting authorising another Director, namely, Satbir Singh- respondent no.5 to participate in the election of Board of Directors of the Apex Bank. It is the case of the petitioners that Bye law 51 of the Apex Bank empowers the General Body of the members of the Apex Bank to elect the Board of Directors of the Apex Bank and once petitioner no.1 had been nominated vide resolution no.10 to participate in the General Body meeting of respondent no.3-Apex Bank, then there was absolutely no need to nominate another Director i.e. respondent no.5-Satbir Singh vide resolution no.11 to represent the Primary Bank in electing Board of Directors of the Apex Bank. Hence the present writ petition challenging the resolution no.11 dated 16.5.2008 (Annexure P/5); voter list dated 6.10.2008 (Annexure P/9) wherein name of respondent no.5-Satbir Singh has been included as representative of the Primary Bank in place of petitioner no.1; and the election programme dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure P/10) based on the impugned voter list. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the petition including the proceedings of the 3rd meeting of the Board of Directors of the Primary Bank, held on 16.5.2008, wherein resolution nos. 10 and 11 (annexed as Annexure P/5) were passed. Vide resolution no.10 it was resolved that Parminder Kaur-petitioner no.1 will participate in the General Body meeting of the Apex Bank to be held on 24.5.2008 to CWP NO.18328 of 2008 3 consider and amend the Bank bye law No.29, in response to the request sent by the Apex Bank vide their letter dated 2.5.2008 (Annexure P/1), whereas vide resolution no.11, respondent no.5-Satbir Singh had been specifically nominated to be the nominee/representative of the Primary Bank to participate in the election of the Board of Directors of the Apex Bank. It is for this reason that name of respondent no.5 has been included in the impugned voter list (Annexure P/9). It is not disputed that petitioner no.1 had participated in the General Body meeting of the Apex Bank held on 24.5.2008 wherein a decision was taken to amend the bye law no.29 of the Apex Bank. By placing reliance upon bye law 51(i) of the Bye Laws of the Apex Bank, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is only the General Body of the Apex Bank which has the power to take decision with regard to the election of the members of the Board of Directors of the Apex Bank and once petitioner no.1 had been nominated to be a member of the General Body, then it is only petitioner no.1 who could participate in the said election and therefore, the nomination of respondent no.5 to take part in the election of Board of Directors of respondent no.3 is illegal. We are not impressed by the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Undoubtedly the provisions of bye law 51(i), reproduced at page 11 of the paper book empowers the General Body of the members to decide about the election of members of the Board of Directors of the Apex Bank, but in the present case we find that it was respondent no.5 who had been specifically authorised/nominated to represent the Primary Bank in the conduct of the election whereas petitioner no.1 had CWP NO.18328 of 2008 4 only been nominated/authorised to be a representative in a meeting held on 24.5.2008 to consider and amend the bank bye law no.29 of the Apex Bank. Therefore, by any stretch of reasoning, resolution no.11 nominating respondent no.5 to be their representative; voter list including name of respondent no.5 on the basis of resolution no.11; and further the election programme for conduct of election of Board of Directors, cannot be said to be illegal warranting interference by this Court in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. For the reasons stated above, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed in limine. (Jaswant Singh) Judge 22.10.2008. (Satish Kumar Mittal) joshi Judge CWP NO.18328 of 2008 5