1996 (6) TMI 354 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice dated 24.10.95.
2. Applicability of Section 31 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.
3. Whether the Board of Directors becomes functus officio upon expiry of three years.
4. Suppression of material facts by the writ petitioner.

Summary:

Validity of the notice dated 24.10.95:
The appeal challenges an order dated 10.5.96, which did not quash a notice dated 24.10.95. The notice was issued under the direction of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society for holding elections on 19.11.95. This notice was contested by the writ petitioner.

Applicability of Section 31 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983:
The learned Trial Judge held that Section 31 of the said Act, which pertains to the dissolution of the Board of Directors if elections are not held within thirty-six months, does not apply in this case. The cross-objection against this finding was not pressed by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1.

Whether the Board of Directors becomes functus officio upon expiry of three years:
The main issue was whether the Board of Directors becomes functus officio upon the expiry of three years from their election. The court held that the life of the Board of Directors does not automatically expire after three years. The provisions of Section 25(3) and Section 25(4) of the said Act allow the Registrar to call a general meeting even after the expiry of fifteen months. Thus, the Board does not become functus officio merely because their term has expired. The court emphasized that no provision of the statute should be read as otiose or surplus.

Suppression of material facts by the writ petitioner:
The writ petition was found to suffer from suppression of material facts, specifically the non-disclosure of an application under Section 95 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act by the writ petitioner No. 1. The court held that non-disclosure of such material facts can lead to the dismissal of the writ application.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge were set aside. The writ application was dismissed due to suppression of material facts, and the cross-objection was also dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

Separate Judgment:
S.N. Chakrabarty, J. concurred with the judgment.