IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.875 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2011 Ravinder Singh Waraich -----Appellant. Vs. The State of Haryana & others -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant. --- 1. Whether the reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest or not? ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition against notice for holding the meeting to consider No Confidence Motion. 2. The appellant was elected as Chairman of Board of Directors of Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Kurukshetra constituted under the provisions of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (for short, “the Act”) and L.P.A. No.875 of 2011 transacting business of banking as per provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. On 3.5.2011, the directors levelled certain allegations against the appellant and sought convening of meeting to consider resolution of No Confidence Motion. Accordingly, the Managing Director of the Bank issued notice/agenda dated 4.5.2011 proposing to hold a meeting on 20.5.2011. The appellant filed writ petition on the ground that specific allegations were not mentioned in the notice/agenda, as required under Section 30A of the Act. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Gulab Singh v. State of Haryana 2001 (1) PLJ 187 holding that requisition for meeting for No Confidence Motion should contain specific allegations. 3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that though the holding of No Confidence Motion meeting required levelling of specific allegations under Section 30A of the Act and judgment of this Court in Gulab Singh, the appellant had not made any averment in the writ petition that specific allegations, as required, have not been made in the representation mentioned in the notice/agenda. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under Section 30A of the Act as well as in the judgment in Gulab Singh, the specific allegations were required to be mentioned in the notice so that affected party is aware of the allegations required to be met. 2 L.P.A. No.875 of 2011 6. On due consideration, no ground is made out to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. No doubt, the affected party is entitled to notice of the allegations but as held by learned Single Judge, in the present case, there is nothing to substantiate that the appellant has not been put to notice of the allegations. The notice/agenda refers to representation dated 3.5.2011 and it has not been pleaded in the writ petition that such representation was not served on the appellant. The representation contained the allegations against the appellant and there is no reason to presume that the same was not served with the agenda. Once that has been done, the requirement of law is met. It is not necessary to separately mention the allegations in the notice/agenda if such allegations are contained in a document accompanying such notice/agenda. 7. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE May 18, 2011 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3