2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:—

“(i) An appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 21.4.2016/2.5.2016 as contained in Memo No. 368/RL dated 3.5.2016 passed by respondent no. 2 in Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 2013 as contained in Annexure-5, be issued.

(ii) An appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Managing Committee consisting of respondent 2nd Party as incomplete and not eligible to manage the affairs of respondent-Bank, be issued.

(iii) An appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent 2nd Party to forbear from managing the affairs of the respondent-Bank, be issued.”

3. The controversy relates to election held to the Managing Committee of the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’) held in January, 2013 in which only six persons were elected to the Managing Committee as Directors out of a total vacancy of thirteen. The petitioner also was a contestant and did not win the election. The challenge is that in terms of the proviso to sub Rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), the constitution of the Managing Committee shall not be treated as complete unless and until the elected members together with the ex-officio members, if any, constitute 50 % or more of the Managing Committee. In the present case, the total number of members of the Managing Committee being 17, in terms of the aforesaid Rule, at least nine persons would enable constitution of the Managing Committee. The matter was brought before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies and by the impugned order, the objection has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Managing Committee of the Bank not having been constituted in the eyes of law, they could not have functioned and taken decisions, much less in financial matters. It was submitted that even the order passed by the Registrar is illegal, for the reason that he himself was the Government nominee to the Managing Committee and thus, could not have been the judge of his own cause. It was submitted that later on, co-option by the so called Managing Committee, of three persons is equally bad for such co-option could only have been done by a Managing Committee in the eyes of law and once there was no constitution of the Managing Committee itself, there could not have been any co-option as the same was exclusively in the domain of the Managing Committee, constituted in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that the Managing Director of the Bank, who could be considered to be a member of the Managing Committee, was required to be appointed under the fit and proper criteria prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and would then have been an ex-officio member of the Managing Committee as per Clause 45(4) of the bye-laws of the Bank. Learned counsel submitted that the then Managing Director not possessing such fit and proper criteria prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India would not be a member of the Managing Committee and thus, in totality, the Managing Committee consisting only of seven elected persons i.e., six elected members and one elected Chairman, even if the nomination by the Government is taken into consideration, the number would add up to only eight and the Managing Committee would still not stand constituted as the magic number was nine. It was submitted that in terms of Section 44 AT of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), special provisions have been made for societies, including the society in question, under Chapter-VI-D of the Act and Section 44AT of the Act provides that it shall have over-riding effect notwithstanding anything contrary or inconsistent contained in