IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1086 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.7.2011 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 AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge rejecting the challenge of the appellant to the No Confidence Motion passed against him under Section 30- A of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (for short, “the Act”). 2. The appellant was elected as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank Limited as per provisions of the Act. Requisite majority of Directors moved No Confidence Motion against the appellant which was duly considered and passed in the meeting held on 20.5.2011. The appellant challenged the same, inter-alia, on the ground that L.P.A. No.1086 of 2011 even though the appellant did not enjoy majority, the allegations therein were false and irrelevant. The appellant was merely to preside over the meetings and had no other role and thus, he could not have caused any loss, as alleged. 3. Learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the challenge and dismissed the writ petition with following observations:- “13. To my mind, while deciding the validity or otherwise of the meeting of 'No Confidence Motion', only statutory majority of 2/3rd members is required and is only a paramount consideration in this respect. The petitioner can remain the Chairman of the respondent-Bank only with the support of majority of the members and not otherwise. If the majority of the elected Directors is of the opinion that they do not want the person holding the post of Chairman to continue in that post, then the petitioner should retire gracefully. The opinion of the majority has to be respected in a democratic regime. The moment, they vote against him in a special meeting, he ceases to be a Chairman and he cannot possibly be permitted to find fault here and there in convening and proceeding of the special meeting on technical defects, as urged on his behalf, unless any kind of prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner or vitiated the proceedings of resolution, in any manner, in this relevant behalf, which are totally lacking in the instant case. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out that how, in what manner and stage, any legal provision was violated, vitiating the resolution of 2 L.P.A. No.1086 of 2011 'No Confidence Motion'. If the petitioner is so confident, then again he can participate in the fresh election, in accordance with law. Once, the petitioner has lost the majority, then he cannot be permitted to remain in chair of such grass-root democratic institution. The support of majority is a paramount consideration and basic feature of such democratic institutions. The clear legislative intent contained in Section 30-A of the Act has to be respected and implemented in the manner, as commanded by it and not otherwise.” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. It is undisputed that the No Confidence Motion has been passed with requisite majority and there are allegations against the appellant therein. In these circumstances, no illegality has been pointed out in the impugned resolution. 6. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE July 04, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3