SCA/5559/1987 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5559 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MEHSANA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & 1 - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MK VAKHARIA for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MR SHUKLA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 – 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 15/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/5559/1987 2/5 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have preferred the petition for appropriate writ, directing respondents to approve the amendment in the bye-law No.32(1)(a) as suggested by the Resolution No.7 dated 3rd September, 1978 in the General Meeting of the petitioner Bank, whereby it was resolved that the State Government shall have right to appoint one Government Nominee on the Board of Directors, so long as there is share-capital by the State Government and that the Apex Bank shall have right to nominate one nominee on the Board of Directors and the Directors so nominated shall have one vote. 2. It appears that when the petition came to be admitted, ad-interim relief in terms of para 21(D) was granted on 16.10.1987 and by virtue of the said order, the respondents were restrained from making any appointment of Government Nominees on the Board of Directors. The said relief has continued throughout. It further appears that as per the petitioners, earlier for the same subject matter, Special Civil SCA/5559/1987 3/5 JUDGMENT Application No.859 of 1979 was preferred and the declaration was made for giving opportunity of hearing. The petitioners apprehended that in the meeting of the Board of Directors of 17th October, 1987, the respondents may appoint Nominee on the Board of Directors and at that stage, the petition was preferred. 3. It appears that after 1987, the period of about 20 years has passed and at least more than 7 elections of the Board of Directors must have taken place by now. Whenever the Government Nominees are to be appointed, it is an independent exercise of power in that Board of Directors. Further, as per the amended provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 80, which has come into force from 23.1.2008, there shall be only one nominee of the State Government in the Committee of the State Cooperative Bank or the Central Cooperative Banks, in which the State Government has subscribed to the share capital of such cooperative banks and no such nomination shall SCA/5559/1987 4/5 JUDGMENT be made, where the State Government has not subscribed to the share capital of such cooperative banks and the aforesaid provisions operate, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or the Rules or in the Bye-laws. Therefore, the exercise will have to be taken afresh by the General Board of the Bank as to whether the amendment in the bye-laws would be required, keeping in view the amended provisions of Section 80(3) of the Act or not. Such an exercise, in any case, will have to be made afresh and it is possible that on account of the amended provisions of Section 80(3) of the Act the General Board of the petitioner Bank may not be required to amend the bye-laws. 4. In view of the aforesaid insertion of Section 80(3) on the statute book of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, as such, the resolution for amendment of bye-laws has become infructuous, for which the prayer is made in the present petition. SCA/5559/1987 5/5 JUDGMENT 5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. However, it is clarified that the present order shall not operate as a bar to the petitioner Bank in moving the amendments, if permissible, in accordance with law, if a cause is made out for such amendment, which satisfies the requirement of law. Disposed of accordingly. 15.2.2008 (Jayant Patel, J.) vinod