M.B. Sharma, J.
1. An important question is involved about the powers of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies Rajasthan, Jaipur to order postponement of the elections of Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies Rajasthan Jaipur under his order dt. April 18, 1987 (Annr. 5) has stayed the programme of elections of the Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur. It is the aforesaid order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan Jaipur which is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The challenge to the aforesaidorder is on two grounds, (i) that under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, the Act) and the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules), the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies Rajasthan, Jaipur has no jurisdiction to issue the aforesaid order Annr. 5 and the same is without jurisdiction and (ii) it is not in public interest to postpone the elections and it has been so wrongly stated in the order that the election programme has been postponed in the public interest.
3. The Act deals with the Co-operative Societies in Rajasthan. Section 2(a) of the Act defines 'bye-laws' which means the bye-laws registered or deemed to be registered under the Act and for the time being in force and includes the registered amendments of such bye-laws. Section 2(g) defines 'financing bank' which means a co-operative society the main object of which is to lend money to other societies and includes a Land Development Bank. Vide notification No. F. (1)30 Co-op. 11/65 dt. 2-3-66 published in Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary Part IV-C dated March 2, 1966 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 2(e) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, (Central Act), the Central Government declared the Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur along with other 25 Central Co-operative Banks and the Rajasthan State Industrial Co-operative Bank, Jaipur to be a Central Co-operative Bank within the meaning of the said clause. Under Section 2(h) 'Government' means the Government of the State of Rajasthan. Under Section 2(k) 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules made under the Act and under Section 2(1) 'Registrar' means a person appointed to perform the functions of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Act and includes any person appointed to assist the Registrar when exercising all or any of the powers of the Registrar. Section 7 deals with the powers of the Registrar to decide certain questions. Under Section 17, the Registrar has powers to direct amalgamation, division and re-organisation in public interest etc. of a co-operative society. Chap. III deals with the Members of Co-operative Societies and their rights and liabilities, and it consists of Sections 19 to 28. Under Section 19(l)(b) any other co-operative society can be admitted as a member of the society. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that an individual shall not be eligible to the membership of a financing bank other than a Land Development Bank or such class of co-operative society as may be prescribed in this behalf. Under Section 22 every member of a co-operative society shall have one vote in the affairs of the society. Section 23 gives the manner of exercising votes and under its Sub-section 2(a) a co-operative society which is a member of another co-operative society may subject to any rules made under the Act appoint one of its members to vote on its behalf in the affairs of that other society. Under Section 29, the final authority in a cooperative society shall subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules vest in the general body of the members. Under its proviso where the bye-laws of a co-operative society provide for the constitution of a smaller body consisting of delegates of members of the society elected in accordance with such bye-laws, the smaller body shall exercise such powers of the general body as may be prescribed or as may be specified in the bye-laws of the society. Under the second proviso to Section 29 nothing in that Section shall affect any powers conferred on a committee or any officer of a co-operative society by the rules or the bye-laws. Under Sub-section (1) of Section30 it is incumbent on every co-operative society to call annual general meeting for the purposes mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) within the prescribed time. In Clause (b) the purpose is election, if any, in the prescribed manner of the members of the committee other than nominated members. Under the proviso to Sub-section (1) if no such meeting is called within the time aforesaid the Registrar or any person authorised by him may call such meeting in the manner prescribed, and that meeting shall be deemed to be a general meeting duly called by the society. Under the second proviso to Sub-section (1) the Registrar may order that the expenditure incurred in calling such a meeting under the foregoing proviso shall be paid out of the funds of the society or by such person or persons who in the opinion of the Registrar, were responsible for the refusal or failure to convene the general meeting. Under Section 32 the Registrar has power to rescind certain resolutions of the co-operative society or any of the committee which in his opinion is opposed to the objects of the society or is prejudicial to the interests of the society or is in excess of the powers of the society. He can do so only after giving an opportunity to the society being heard It is the general body of the co-operative society which has power under Section 33 of the Act to constitute a committee in accordance with the bye-laws and it is that committee which has to be entrusted with the management of the cooperative society. Section 35 of the Act deals with the removal of the aforesaid committee and Section 36 deals with removal of committee or member thereof. Under Section 46 it is provided that it shall be the duty of the Government to encourage and promote the co-operative movement in the State and to take such steps in this direction as may be necessary. Section 70 vests powers in the Registrar to either hold himself or order any person in writing to hold inquiry into the constitution working and financial condition of a co-operative society. Under Section 71 he has also powers to inspect the books of a co-operative society or direct any person authorised by him in this behalf to inspect the book of the co-operative society. Chapter IX of the Act deals with the dispute to be referred to arbitration. The disputes mentioned therein are to be referred to the Registrar for decision, but there is no provision to refer the dispute between the Registrar and the Co-operative Society for arbitration. Section 76 deals with limitation in respect of disputes enumerated in Section 75 of the Act. Under Section 139 of the Act the Government may by general or special order exempt any co-operative society or any class of societies from any provisions of the Act or may direct that such provisions shall apply to such society or class of societies with such modifications as may be specified in the order. Section 147(1) of the Act provides that the Government may by notification in the official gazette and subject to such conditions if any as it may think fit to impose, delegate all or any of the powers of the Registrar under the Act to any apex or central society as classified under the Rules or to an officer of any such society. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 147 the Government may by notification in the official Gazette direct that all or any of the powers exercisable by it under the Act or the Rules may be exercisable by the Registrar or such other officer and subject to such conditions if any may be specified in the notification. Section 148( 1) of the Act vests powers in the State Government to make Rules to carry out the purposes of the Act, provided that any rule may be made under Sub-section (1) of Section 148 without previous publication if the State Government considers that it should be brought into force at once. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 148 in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the matters mentioned therein including the matters of election and matters of general meetings of the members as contained in Clause (xxii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 148. These are the relevant provisions for the disposal of the points involved in the writ petition in respect of the powers of the Registrar as well as the Government on the matter of election of cooperative society.
4. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 148 of the Act, the State Government framed the Rules. Rule 2 is a definition rule. Under Rule 2(g) 'Co-operative Bank' means a society registered under the Act and doing the business of banking as defined in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949. Chapter IV of the Rules deals with the management of the society and Rule 32 deals with the election of the members of the committee by the general body. Rule 33 deals with election of Chairman, Vice-chairman, etc. by the members of the committee. We will have the occasion to deal with Rule 32 at the later stage of this order. Suffice it to say that under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 the election of the members of the committee of every society belonging to the categories mentioned therein shall be conducted in the manner specified in Rule 32 by the Election Officer appointed by the Registrar. Under Rule 34(1) subject to the provisions contained in Sections. 33 and 36 of the Committee of a society, a committee shall be constituted in the manner provided in the bye-laws.
5. The bye-laws were framed by the Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur (for short, the Bank). Under bye law 4(ka) there are three categories of members of the Bank, namely, categories (a), (b) and (c). The total membership of the Bank of the three categories issaid to be 560. It consists of Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, numbering 349, Kriya Vikrya Sahkari Samiti, numbering 11 and other co-operative societies numbering 200. These are the members of the above categories (a), (b) and (c) respectively. Under bye-law 30 it is provided that the responsibility of the administration of the Bank shall beof the Board of Directors and also provides how the Board of Directors shall be constituted. The total number of Directors is 11, 8 to be elected out of the delegated members belonging to category (a), again out of these 8, three are to belong to weaker Section and 5 are to belong to general Section . One Director is to be elected by the members of the category (b) and two Directors are to be elected from category (c) and out of these two, one from weaker Section and one from general Section is to be elected. Under bye-law 31, the period of Board of Directors shall be three years. It also provides that in case there has been no election of the Board of Directors for a period of three years, then after expiry of four months from the registration of bye-laws the election will be held for at least three years. The bye-laws have been approved by the Registrar.
6. The elected Board of Directors of the Bank was suspended on Dec. 10, 1976 by virtue of powers vested under Section 36 of the Act. It was done during National emergency and along with the elected Board of Directors of the Bank, the Board of Directors of all other Central Co-operative Banks, Primary Co-operative Land Development Banks, Marketing Co-operative Societies, Apex Cooperative Bank and other Apex Co-operative Institutions were also suspended. In place of suspended elected Board of Directors a committee was nominated by the Registrar which later on was replaced by the Administrators and thereafter the committees were nominated in most of the aforesaid institutions generally headed by the Members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly belonging to the Ruling Congress( I) party and thereafter again Administrators were appointed. So far as the Bank is concerned, first a committee was nominated by the Registrar vide his order dated December 10, 1976 and the non Sept. 3, 1977 the Collector, Bharatpur was appointed as Administrator and he is continuing as such since then.
7. Demands have been raised from time to time for placing the co-operative institutions under the control of elected Board of Directors, but according to the petitioners on one pretext or the other and without any cogent reasons the elections were not held However, the State Government took a decision in Aug., 1981 to hold the elections of the Board of Directors in all Co-operative Institutions latest by the end of 1981 under 20 point resolves of the then Chief Minister Shri Shiv Charan Mathur. This was not done and the State Government again declared that its unfulfilled resolve would be fulfilled by the end of 1982. Even then, elections were not held and demands were again raised from time to time and the Government after a decade of the supersession of elected Board of Directors again made a declaration that the elections to the institutions shall be held. In pursuance of this declaration, Election Officer was appointed for the Bank by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur Zone, Bharatpur on Oct. 11, 1986 and election calendar was also announced for completion of the elections on Dec. 16, 1986. Shri Anil Kumar was appointed as Election Officer but the elections were again post-poned on the pretext that elections to the Panchayat Institutions are being held. It is further the case of the petitioners that since Dec., 1976 when the Board of Directors of the Bank and other institutions had been removed, the country and the State had thrice gone for parliamentary general elections and thrice for Assembly general elections, but the elections to the aforesaid institutions with much smaller electorate could not be held for no cogent reasons.
8. However, the State Government finally decided to hold elections to the aforesaid institutions and in this process, the Additional Registrar Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur issued detailed instructions vide his letter dated April 6, 1987. The election calendar was also enclosed with the letter dt. April 6, 1987. Under that programme the election for constitution of the Board of Directors of the Central Co-operative Banks were to be held as per the election calendar which provided for the commencement of the process of election from April 22, 1987 and to complete that process with the election of office bearers by May 18, 1987. (Annrs. 2A and 2B respectively). According to the petitioners, the Central Co-operative Banks are institutions of which only co-operative societies are members and not individuals. Therefore, they have to send their delegates to form the general body of the Central Cooperative Banks and to participate in the elections thereof. Under the letter dt. April 6, 1987 it was directed that necessary resolution appointing delegates to the Central Co-operative Banks by the member societies be obtained by April 20, 1987. This was with a view that the election process will be commenced with the publication of the provisional voters list on April 22, 1987. The Managing Director of the Bank vide his communication dt. April 13, 1987 asked the member societies of the Bank to send the resolution in the prescribed pro forma appointing delegates to the Bank so as to reach the Head Office of the Bank by 5 p.m. on April 20,1987 (Annr. 3). Accordingly, the petitioner society sent a copy of the resolution passed by it in this behalf appointing the petitioner 2 as its delegate which was received in the office of the Bank on April 18, 1987. Similarly, the resolution was sent by practically all the members societies of the Bank. The Registrar again sent a letter on April 16, 1987 to all the Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies of the Zone with reference to his earlier letter dt. April 6, 1987, wherein the election calendar was modified with respect to certain Central Cooperative Banks on account of the fact that the elections to the Marketing Societies in the concerned Districts were not complete but so far as the Bank is concerned, as all relevant elections had been completed and neither there was any need for modifying the election calendar nor it was modified and the programme circulated by the letter dt. April 6, 1987 stood unchanged
9. According to the petitioners abruptly the Registrar issued an order dt. April 18, 1987 wherein it was stated that the elections of the Bank are stayed with immediate effect till further orders. The reason given in the order was that it was in public interest to do so. According to the petitioners, it appears that the said order was issued in pursuance of the letter dt. April 18, 1987 of the Dy. Secretary to the Government, Co-operative Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. In pursuance of the Registrar's order, the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies Bharatpur Zone, Bharatpur directed the Election Officer and accordingly the Election Officer stayed the elections vide his letter dt. April 21, 1987 till further orders. The petitioned having come to know of the staying the election by the Registrar approached him on April 24,1987 and submitted an application protesting the staying of the elections and requesting him to withdraw his order dt. April 18, 1987 arid permit the election programme to go on for constitution of the Board of Directors of the Bank. Various pleas were raised in the aforesaid letter but with no avail and the Registrar has not withdrawn the letter dt. April 18, 1987.
10. According to the petitioners, there is no power vested in the Registrar under which he could postpone the elections and therefore the order is incompetent, invalid and void Assuming that the Registrar has such powers, the Registrar has not acted independently and has acted on the instructions of Shri K. Natwar Singh, State Minister for External Affairs. Shri K. Natwar Singh. Member of Lok Sabha from Bharatpur has prevailed on Chief Minister Shri Hardeo Joshi and Shri Ramdeo Singh, Co-operative Minister to postpone the elections which have been postponed on political pressure in order to deprive the petitioner 2 and others from being elected as Director as the Congress feels that the management of the Bank shall go in the hands of the Members belonging to the Lok Dal party.
11. Notice wasgiventothe non-petitioners and reply has been filed on behalf of the non-petitioners 1 and 2 and it is not disputed that the elections were postponed but the postponement is said to be for good reasons. The Bank according to the answering respondents had become financially shaky and among other things there had occurred substantial erosion in the value of the assets of the Bank. So much so that its paid up share capital reserves and deposits had been seriously affected. The NABARD had inspected the Bank from time to time under Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act as applicable to Co-operative Societies and had brought it to the notice of the Bank, the Registrar and the Government. This deplorable state of affairs obtaining in the Bank was one of the major reasons of postponement of elections. It is further the case of the non-petitioners that considerations relating to a financial institution like a Central Co-operative Bank are altogether different and cannot be compared with the considerations governing elections to political institutions. It is further their case that the Registrar received representation from Zila Pramukh, Bharatpur on April 17, 1987 and the said representation was signed by the Zila Pramukh, seven Pradhans of the Panchayat Samities, 3 members of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and a number of ex-Directors of the Bank among others. A copy of the said representation has been placed on the file as Annr. R-l/1. According to the non-petitioners, the Registrar gave considerations to that representation and found that the allegations/averments madein that representation were substantially correct. The Registrar deemed it his duty to bring to the notice of the Government the factual position regarding the Bank. A letter was addressed to the Secretary to the Government in the Co-operative Department on the same date. A copy of that letter has been filed as Annr. Rl/2. The Registrar came to the conclusion that in view of the financial position of the Bank and other facts mentioned in Annr. Rl/2, it would not be in the interest of public is general and in the interest of depositors and share-holders of the Bank to hold the election as proposed previously and that the elections should be postponed for the time being. The Registrar came to this conclusion independently and after proper application of his mind, and he was not governed by any political pressure and no political pressure was exercised by anybody. It has been denied that Shri K. Natwar Singh prevailed to postpone the elections. Though, it is not denied that he attended the meeting, but according to the answering respondents in the said meeting the matter of postponing the elections was not discussed. Sarva Shri Hardeo Joshi, Ramdeo Singh and K. Natwar Singh have filed their affidavits in which the allegations of exerting any pressure on the Registrar has been denied.
12. It is also the case of the answering non-petitioners that the Bank did not comply with the provisions of Section 11 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (as applicable to Cooperative Societies) as on June 30, 1985, the date of inspection. The estimated erosion in the value of assets of the Bank as on June 30, 1985 at Rs. 662.31 lacs had not only wiped out the entire paid up share capital, reserves and provisions and other items not in the nature of outside liabilities but also affected the deposits to the extent of Rs. 310.65 lacs. Thus, the case of the non-petitioners is that the financial position is shaky and it is the reason as to why the Registrar has postponed the elections. It is also the case that the Bank was serving as a Central Bank for the district of Bharatpur of which the present district of Dholpur was also part. After Dholpur was made an independent district NABARD and the State Government were considering a proposal for establishing a separate Central Co-operative Bank for the present Dholpur district. The matter is receiving urgent consideration at the highest level, and it is one of the considerations as to why the elections have been postponed Affidavit of Shri Khanna, Registrar has also been filed that he has taken independent decision in postponing the elections.
13. Rejoinder was filed to the reply of the answering respondents wherein it has been contested that the financial position of the Bank was shaky and a plea has been raised that there are other Central Co-operative Banks whose financial position is worse, but the elections of the Board of Directors of those Banks have (not) been postponed, but the elections of the Board of Directors of these Banks has been postponed and the Bank has been discriminated and thus Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution have been violated. Affidavit of Natthi Singh has also been filed along with the rejoinder to show the financial position of the Bank and other Central Cooperative Banks.
14. Before we deal with the question as to what are the powers of the Registrar under the Act and Rules, we would first like to deal with the case of the petitioner that decision to postpone the ejection under Annr. 5 has been taken at the behest of Shri K. Natwar Singh, who is said to have prevailed on the Chief Minister Shri Hardeo Joshi and Shri Ramdeo Singh Co-operative Minister, who in turn have prevailed on the Registrar to pass an order postponing the elections. We may state straightway that there is no case of exerting political influence or mala fides against any of the functionaries. The law is settled that if mala fides are alleged, the pleadings must be specific and there should be proof in respect of mala fides, though mostly it is a matter of inference from the circumstances of each case on the material on record. Such an inference can only be raised if from the circumstances on record, such inference is possible, and mere suspicion will not take the place of proof of mala fides. It was on April 14, 1987 that in the evening a meeting of Congressmen with Shri K. Natwar Singh was held at the residence of the Collector, Bharatpur wherein the local officers of the Co-operative Department and Bank were also present. According to the petitioner in the said meeting the Congressmen reported to Shri K. Natwar Singh that it is not possible for the Congress to win the election and the majority will go to the petitioner 2. The officers present in the said meeting are also said to have supported the aforesaid view. It was then and there that it was decided that elections be got stayed/postponed. Shri K. Natwar Singh then laid pressure on the Chief Minister Shri Hardeo Joshi that elections to the Board of Directors of the Bank be stayed and it is therefore that these elections have been stayed under the pressure of Shri K. Natwar Singh on the instructions of the Chief Minister and Co-operative Minister by the Registrar. We may state that the above pleadings about the alleged mala fides are contained in para 13(f) and (g) of the writ petition. A look at the affidavit in support of the writ petition will show that only second part of para 13 has been verified to be true and correct on the knowledge of Natthi Singh petitioner No. 2 and so far as first part of para 13 of the writ petition is concerned, it has been verified to be correct and true on the basis of record available with them. There is no verification in so far as Sub-paras (f) and (g) of para 13 of the writ petition isconcerned It has not been stated anywhere in the writ petition that Natthi Singh was present in that meeting said to have been held on April 14, 1987 at the residence of the Collector, Bharatpur, and he can have no personal knowledge about any decision alleged to have been taken in the said meeting for postponing on staying the elections. We have already said earlier that affidavit of Sarva Shri K. Natwar Singh, Hardeo Joshi and Ramdeo Singh have been filed stating that no interference in postponing the elections by the Registrar was made and the Registrar has stated that he had taken independent decision to postpone the elections. Thus, no case of mala fides is made out.
15. We will revert to the question what are the powers of the Registrar in the matter of postponing the elections under the Act and the Rules and the Bye-laws of the Bank. It has been contended by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to postpone the elections and when the calendar of elections has been settled by him and the Election Officer has been appointed, it was the Election Officer who alone could have conducted the elections under the Rules and the Registrar could not have interfered in the process of elections. Mr. Jain, learned Advocate General on behalf of some of the respondents has contended that it was the administrative decision which was taken by the Registrar to hold the elections of all the Central Co-operative Banks and one administrative order was superseded by another administrative order Annr. 5 and the Registrar has over all supervision on all the co-operative societies and he could have made the order Annr. 5 dt. April 18, 1987 postponing the elections.
16. In the earlier part of this order, we have already dealt with the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules in so far as the cooperative societies are concerned. We will again scan the relevant provisions in order to see what are the powers of the Registrar under the Act and the Rules. We may state that the Act is self-contained Act providing complete procedure for the management and election etc. of the co-operative societies. The Act is exhaustive piece of legislation and its provisions are to be interpreted strictly in accordance with the provisions laid down under the Act itself. Under the Act, the Registrar has powers to classify the societies (Section 4(2)), register or refuse to register society and the bye-laws and every amendment of such bye-laws (Sections 8(1), 9, II, 13 and 14); to decide whether a person is an agriculturist, or resident of area or a weaker Section of the community; to amalgamate, divide or reorganise societies, (Sections. 16 and 17); to cancel registration (Section 18); to decide admission of member (S. 19); to permit payment of the share capital in excess of the limit under Section 26; to call meeting in absence of annual general meeting or special general meeting (Ss. 30, 31); to rescind certain resolutions of the society (Section 32); to decide disqualification of member of the committee (Section 34(8)); to remove the committee and appoint an Administrator (Section 36); to apply for securing possession of records (Section 37); to do work relating to audit, inquiry, inspection and surcharge under Chapter VIII; to wound up the society appoint liquidator and dissolve the society under Chapter X; to permit a cooperative bank to function as a Land Development Bank, to work as trustee, if appointed by the Government of the State Land Development Bankand to perform such functions of the trustee as enumerated under Chap. XI; to grant certificate for the recovery of arrears in respect of Land Development Bank or to direct conditional attachment of the property of the mortgagor; to pass orders regarding execution of Awards, Decrees, orders and decisions and to function as Civil Court, There is no power under any of the Section s vested in the Registrar to interfere in the matter of elections of a co-operative society.
17. Under Section 29 of the Act the final authority in a co-operative society subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules is vested in the general body of the members. Under the proviso to Section 29 where the bye laws of a co-operative society provide for the constitution of a smaller body consisting of delegates of members of the society elected in accordance withsuch bye-laws the smaller body shall exercise such power of the general body as may be prescribed or .as may be specified in the bye-laws of the society. Under Section 30(l)(b), it is the co-operative society who shall within the time prescribed therefor call an annual general meeting for the purposeof election, if any, in the prescribed manner of the members of the committee other than nominated members. Under the proviso to Sub-section (I) of that section if no such meeting is called within the time aforesaid the Registrar or any person authorised by him may call such meeting in the manner prescribed, and that meeting shall be deemed to be a gen eral meeting fully called by the society. Under Section 33 it is the general body of the co-operative society which shall constitute a committee in accordance with the bye-laws and shall entrust the management of the affairs of the society to such committee. At least one-third of the members of the committee shall be from weaker Section , if for any reason such members from the weaker Section are not elected, or a vacancy occurs among them, the deficiency or vacancy shall be made good or filled in as the case may be, by the State Government or by the Registrar if so authorised by the State Government in relation to any society by nominating persons belonging to weaker Section s on the committee of such society. Under the third proviso in the case of a Central Co-operative Bank or a Land Development Bank or a farmers' service society, where the term of the elected members of the committee of such society has not expired on the date of the coming into force of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1976 and the committee of such society does not have at least one-third of its members from amongst the weaker sections, the State Government shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, or the bye-laws of such society, nominate on the committee of such society such further number of members as may be necessary, to have at least one third of its members from amongst the weaker Section . Thus under Section 33 it is the general body of the co-operative society who has power to constitute a committee in accordance with the bye-laws and has to entrust the management of the affairs of the society to such committee. A committee within the meaning of Section 3 will include the Board of Directors also and there can be no dispute about it. A reference has already been made tothe bye-laws of the Bank which as already stated have been approved by the Registrar and at the cost of repetition reference is made to bye-laws 30 and 31 respectively. Bye-law 30 provides that it shall be for the Board of Directors to manage the Bank and it shall be constituted in accordance with the procedure mentioned therein. It has already been said in the earlier part of this order that the Board of Directors shall consist of 11 Directors from the three categories, namely, (a), (b) and (c). Bye-law 31 provides that the period of the Board of Directors shall be three years and in case earlier the elections have not been held for the Board of Directors for a period of three years, then such elections shall be held after expiry of four months of the coming into force of the bye-laws. Thus, bye-law 31 provides a period of three years for the elected Board of Directors. It has already been said earlier that the Board of Directors of the bank was superseded on Dec. 10, 1976 by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur and after the supersession of the elected Board of Directors the committee was nominated by the Registrar and then on Sept. 3, 1977 Collector of Bharatpur District was appointed as Administrator who is continuing since then as such. The relevant Section under which the aforesaid action of supersession of the Board of Directors was taken is 36 of the Act. The Committee which includes Board of Director of the Bank could only be removed after a reasonable opportunity would have been given to it to state its objections, if any, but we are not concerned presently with regard to the legality or otherwise of the supersession of the elected Board of Directors on Dec. 10, 1976. Under Sub-section (l)(a) of Section 36 the Registrar could remove the Committee as aforesaid and could appoint a Government servant as Administrator to manage the affairs of the society and is required to submit his report justifying the removal of the Committee to the State Government. Under Sub-section (l)(b) the State Government after perusal of the report of the Registrar shall within a period of three months from the date of the order of removal of the committee pass an order (i) confirming the removal of the committee; or(ii) accepting the appeal and setting aside the order of removal. Under Sub-section (l)(c) of Section 36 if the State Government confirms the order of removal of a committee, it may allow the Administrator to continue or may nominate another committee and where the State Government accepts the appeal and sets aside the order of removal the Committee so removed shall start functioning to all intents and for all purposes, as if it had never been removed. Under Section 36(l)(d) the Administrator appointed under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) shall cease to hold office immediately upon the nomination of another committee or upon the setting aside of the order of removal as the case may be. The nominated committee shall cease to hold office upon the expiry of the remainder of the term of the elected committee removed under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36. Under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act the State Government may, by order, extend the period of office of a nominated committee for such time not exceeding one year as may be specified in the order. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 36 the Administrator so appointed or committee so nominated as aforesaid shall subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as may from time to time give, have powers to perform all or any of the functions of the committee or of any officer of the society and take all such action as may be required in the interest of the society. Sub-section (4) of Section 36 privides that the nominated committee before ceasing to hold office under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1-A), shall arrange for the election of a new committee in accordance with the bye-laws of the society and the newly elected committee shall function with effect on and from the date of the nominated committee cease to hold office as aforesaid. Under Sub-section (5) of Section 36 notwithstanding anything contained in the Act during the period the administrator or the nominated committee holds office under Sub-section (1-A), the general body of the society shall have noright to constitute any committee under Section 33 except as provided under Sub-sec. (4). A look at the aforesaid provisions will show that so far as nominated committee is concerned, it shall cease to hold office upon the expiry of the remainder of the term of the elected committee removed under' Clause (a) Sub-section (1) of Section 36. There is no provision as to how long the administrator appointed under Sub-section (l)(a) of Section 33 shall continue. But taking into consideration the aforesaid provisions to the effect that the administrator appointed under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36 shall cease to hold office immediately upon the nomination of the committee. The nominated committee shall hold office for the remainder of the term of the elected committee removed under Clause (a), Sub-section (1). We are of the opinion that the administrator too ceases to hold the office upon the expiry of the remainder term of the committee removed under Sub-section (1)(a) but under the proviso the period of the office of the administrator can be extended for such time not exceeding one year as may be specified in the order because under the proviso the period of nominated committee can only be so extended. We have already referred earlier to the provisions of Section 33 of the Act and it is the general body of the cooperative society who has to constitute the committee in accordance with the bye-laws and has to entrust the management of the affairs of the society to such committee. We have in the earlier part of this order referred to bye-law 31 wherein it has been provided that the period of election of the Board of Directors shall be three years unless an administrator is appointed or a committee is nominated and in that case the period of nominated committee or administrator as the case may be can only be extended to one year thus in no case the period will exceed four years. The scheme of the Act therefore appears to be that the elections to the committee or Board of Directors of the Cooperative Society must be held in accordance with the bye-laws and it should have been done after three years or at any rate after the period of four years as aforesaid even if an administrator was appointed, but no elections have been held for one reason or the other, in spite of decision having been taken to hold the elections.
18. The Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur issued detailed instructions vide his letter dt. April 6, 1987. The election calendar was also enclosed with the aforesaid letter.and under the programme, the elections of the Board of Directors of Central Co-operative Banks, which includes the Bank were to be held as per the election calendar from April 22, 1987 and were to be completed by May 18, 1987 (Annxs. 2-A and 2-B). As already stated earlier, the Central Co-operative Banks are the institutions of which the co-operative societies are members and individuals are not members. Therefore, the member societies are required to send their delegates to participate in the election. Under the letter dt. April 6, 1987 it was directed to send their proposals to the concerned institutions which should reach the Central Co-operative Banks by April 20, 1987. So far as the Bank is concerned, the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur Zone, Bharatpur issued an order dated Oct. 21, 1986 appointing Shri Anil Kumar as Election Officer under Rule 32(1) of the Rules. A reference to the aforesaid Rules have already been made and at the cost of the repetition it may be stated that under Sub-rule (1) thereof the election of the members of the committee of every society belonging to the classes mentioned therein may be conducted in the manner specified in Rule 32 by the Election Officer appointed by the Registrar. The only function which is conferred on the Registrar is that he shall appoint the Election Officer. Thereafter, it is for the Election Officer to conduct the election of the members of the committee of the society in the manner specified in Rule 32 of the Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 provides that the election shall be held at a general meeting of the society of which not less than seven clear days notice shall be given to the members. The Election Officer shall commence and conduct the election; provided that at the commencement of the meeting there shall be the quorum specified under the rules or the bye-laws. Sub-rule (3)(i) of Rule 32 of the Rules provides that the notice of the general meeting shall be sent by the Election Officer to the member by one or more of the modes provided therein. Notice of the general meeting shall also be affixed to the notice board of the Society and published at such public place of importance as may be decided by the Election Officer. Sub-rule 3(ii) of Rule 32 provides that what information the notice shall contain and Sub-rule (4) provides that the Election Officer shall prepare a list as it stood thirty days prior to the date fixed for the poll of members who are qualified in accordance with the provisions of the Act, rules and the bye-laws framed thereunder to vote at the election and publish copies of the list by affixing them to the notice board at the head office of the Society and all its branches not less than ten days prior to the date fixed for election. The list shall specify the admission number and name of the eligible member, and in case of individual members, the name of the father or husband and the address of such member. A copy of the list shall be supplied by the Election Officer to any member on payment of fifteen paise per folio. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 32 provides that the nomination of a candidate for election shall be made in Form No. 'G' and the form shall on application be supplied to a member on payment of such fee as may be specified by the Election Officer. Under Sub-rule 5(ii) of Rule 32 every nomination paper shall be signed by two members whose names are included in the list referred to in Sub-rule (4). One of the members shall sign the Form as proposer and the other as seconder for the nomination. The nomination paper shall also contain a declaration signed by the candidate proposed for election to the effect that he is willing to stand for election. Subsequent rules provide as to how election process is to be completed Under Sub-rule 2(i) soon after the counting of votes is over, the Election Officer shall prepare and certify a return setting forth--(a) total number of ballot papers issued, (b) the number of valid votes given to each candidate; (c) the number of ballot papers declared to be invalid or rejected. On the basis of this return the candidates who have secured the largest number of valid votes shall be declared elected at the general meeting and their names shall be published on the notice board of the Society under the signatures of the Election Officer. The result of the election shall be attested by the Election Officer and should also be recorded in the minute book of the society. It will therefore be clear that after the Election Officer has been appointed by the Registrar which power, as already stated, is only vested in the Registrar, it is the Election Officer so appointed who has to conduct the election of the members of the committee in accordance with Rule 30. The Registrar has no power to interfere in the conduct of elections by the Election Officer. The contention of Mr. N.L Jain, learned Advocate General that a distinction has to be made in cases where the election process has started which according to him can only start by filing the nomination papers and in cases where the election process has not started and in the latter category of cases the Registrar has power to postpone the elections or to change the calendar of elections. We are of the opinion that no such distinction can be made and we have already stated that the Act is self-contained Act and Rule 32 provides how elections take place The Registrar can only appoint the Election Officer and once an Election Officer is appointed, it is the Election Officer who has to conduct the elections in accordance with rules and the Registrar cannot postpone the elections. Assuming that a power may be said to be vested in the Registrar to appoint another Election Officer in case the one dies, resigns or ceases to hold the office for any reason, but beyond that Registrar has no power and as already stated earlier it is the Election Officer who has the power to hold the elections in accordance with the procedure contained in Rule 32 of the Rules. In Ziley Singh v. Registrar, Cane Co-operative Societies, AIR 1972 SC 758 dealing with the powers of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, Rule 409, it was held that the Registrar has no power to interpret Rule 409. The Registrar equally has no power to express view with regard to conduct of the elections and regulate the voting rights by giving the members more than one vote. It was further held that constitution of the committee of management is indisputably one of the affairs of the society. In P. Pentayya v. S. Somaraju, AIR 1980 Andh Pra 98, dealing with Rule 22(5)(iv) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 and Rule 22(2), it was held that Election Officer has no power to postpone the date of election and his powers are strictly confined under the Act. It was further held that there is no provision under the Rules which relates to conduct of elections enabling the Election Officer to postpone the date of the General Body Meeting. We are of the opinion that the powers of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies are strictly limited by the Statute, namely the Act and the Rules and the only power is vested in him to appoint the Election Officer and thereafter, it is for the Election Officer to conduct the election in accordance with the rules and the Registrar cannot interfere and he has no power to postpone the elections for any reason whatsoever.
19. With the view which we have taken it is not necessary for us to go into various reasons for which the elections have been postponed. We are of the opinion that no power is vested in the Registrar to postpone the elections after he appoints the Election Officer. The order Annx. 5 is not in accordance with law and is without jurisdiction. We may state that we have taken the view that in accordance with the bye-laws of the Bank the election of the Board of Directors of the Bank should take place after the expiry of three years. We have also said that even in case the removal of committee by the Registrar under Section 36 of the Act, the Administrator or nominated committee can continue for the remainder term of the elected members plus one year up to which the term may be extended by the Government. Thus, in case where the etections are not held even after the expiry of the aforesaid period, any interested person can come to this Court with the prayer to issue writ of mandamus to the Registrar to appoint the Election Officer and to further direct the Election Officer to conduct the election. In the instant case the supersession order was passed in 1976. This is such a case even if the petitioners would have come to us for issue of a mandamus directing the Registrar to appoint the Election Officer and directing the Election Officer to conduct the election, we would have been inclined to issue such a mandamus. Though we are not concerned with the reasons for postponement of the elections as we have held that the Registrar has no power to postpone the elections, after having appointed the Election Officer, but it may also be added that the reasons that the elected Directors of the Bank will not or may not discharge their duties strictly and crores of rupees which are due may not be recovered cannot be a reason because our country has chosen a democratic way of life and co-operatives are extended principles of democracy. In case the elected Board of Directors commits any of the acts or omissions as mentioned in Section 36 of the Act it will be liable to be superseded/removed but the Registrar has no power to postpone the elections. Even Mr. N. L. Jain, learned Advocate General on being asked gave out that the elections will be held within one year. We have already said earlier that the question is as to whether the Registrar has any power under the Act or Rules to postpone the elections after having appointed the Election Officer. We have held that no such power is vested in the Registrar.
20. Consequently, we partly allow the writ petition. We hereby quash the order Annex. 5 dt. April 18, 1987, and Annex. 6 dt. Aprit21. 1987 and direct the Election Officer appointed by the Registrar to hold the elections in accordance with Rule 32 of the Rules as soon as possible but in no case later than six months. Costs made easy.