Civil Writ Petition No.8296 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8296 of 2011 Date of Decision:10.05.2011 Ravinder Singh Waraich ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Gobinder Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that, in the wake of election of the office bearers of the Board of Directors of the Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Kurukshetra(for brevity “the Bank”), the petitioner was elected as its Chairman on 02.06.2008. The elected Directors of the Bank were not satisfied with the functioning of the petitioner and they moved a representation dated 03.05.2011, to consider the resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' against him(petitioner). 2. The petitioner claimed that the Managing Director of the Bank illegally issued the following notice/agenda dated 04.05.2011(Annexure P-1), for the meeting scheduled to be held on 20.05.2011:- “Agenda No.1—To consider the representation dated 03.05.2011 given by the elected Directors of The Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kurukshetra regarding No Confidence Motion against Sh.Ravinder Singh Waraich, Chairman of the Bank.” 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned notice/agenda(Annexure P-1), inter alia, on the Civil Writ Petition No.8296 of 2011 2 ground that the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 30-A of The Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 5. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since no specific allegation has been mentioned in the notice, so, the impugned agenda(Annexure P-1) is illegal, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in case Gulab Singh Versus State of Haryana, 2001(1) PLJ 187, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it was observed that the requisition/representation for convening a meeting of 'No Confidence Motion' should contain specific allegations and charges against the Chairman. Hardly, there can be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations. To me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the present controversy. 6. As is clear, Section 30-A of the Act postulates that the elected members of the committee may bring a motion of no confidence against the elected office bearers, i.e., Chairman and Vice-Chairman other than the Government nominees by levelling specific allegations against such Chairman and Vice-Chairman. If the motion of no confidence is passed by a resolution of 2/3rd majority of the total number of elected members of the society concerned at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, the Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall cease to function as such with immediate effect and the election of new office bearers shall be held within two months of the removal in accordance with Section 30 of the Act. 7. A conjoint reading of this provision would reveal that the specific allegations against such Chairman are only required to be mentioned in the requisition/representation and not in the notice/agenda, as urged on behalf of the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No.8296 of 2011 3 8. As is evident from the record that the agenda was issued in pursuance of the representation dated 03.05.2011, moved by the elected Directors of the Bank. The petitioner has nowhere (specifically) pleaded in the writ petition that the representation dated 03.05.2011, which formed the basis of notice/agenda (Annexure P-1) did not contain any specific allegations and charges against him. As, there is no legal requirement that the specific allegations/charges are required to be mentioned in the notice/agenda, therefore, there is no illegality in convening the meeting in this relevant behalf. 9. In this manner, the Managing Director of the Bank has only issued notice to convene a meeting, to consider the representation of 'No Confidence Motion' and nothing else. It remains an unfolded mystery as to why the petitioner is feeling shy and so scared to face the meeting. If the petitioner would prove his majority, then the representation/requisition is bound to fail. 10. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases titled as K.Narasimhiah Versus H.C.Singri Gowda and others, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 330 and Jyoti Basu and others Versus Debi Ghosal and others, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 983 and of this Court in cases titled as Kala Ram Versus The State of Punjab, 1995(1) RRR 21, and Parkash Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2000(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 371, has ruled that while deciding the validity of meeting and that of resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' passed therein, only majority of 2/3rd members, is legally required and the defects in the notice or in its service of convening the meeting etc.,(as urged on behalf of the petitioner in the instant case) did not by itself make the proceedings of the meeting of the resolution passed therein invalid. The statutory requirement of 2/3rd majority of the members is a paramount consideration and the authority has no power to stop the passing of such resolution in this relevant connection. 11. Therefore, the contrary argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto-sensu” deserves to be and is hereby repelled under the present Civil Writ Petition No.8296 of 2011 4 set of circumstances, as the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis- mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. May 10, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE