The exercise of power by the Executive Officer of a co-operative society under R. 47 (2) (ii) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1974, is subject to the general control of the managing committee, and the Executive Officer cannot act contrary to the decision of the managing committee.

( 1 ) THE appellants, the Howrah District Co-operative Bank Ltd. , hereinafter referred to as the "said Bank" and its Executive Officer have preferred the appeal against the judgment and order dt. Nov. 13, 1984 of B. C. Basak, J.

( 2 ) THE Bagnan Thana Agricultural Primary Co-operative Society Ltd. , hereinafter referred to as "the said Society", is a Society registered in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as; "the Act". The said Society is a marketing Society within the meaning of R. 2 (3) (iv) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1974, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules".

( 3 ) THE said Society is affiliated to the said Bank as a member and shareholder thereof. The said Bank is a registered Co-operative Society and is also a Central Co-operative Bank within the meaning of S. 2 (f) of the Act. It may be stated here that a Government Officer has been appointed the Executive Officer of the said Bank at the request of its managing committee under S. 24 of the Act.

( 4 ) BY an order dt. Mar. 21, 1983, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Howrah dissolved and/or superseded the managing committee of the said Society and appointed a Board of Administrators. Being aggrieved by the order of supersession, the Directors of the said Society moved a writ petition before a learned single Judge of this Court on Mar. 23, 1983. The learned Judge issued a Rule Nisi and granted an interim stay of the order of supersession or dissolution of the managing committee.

( 5 ) THE said Rule was ultimately disposed of by Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. by his order dt. April 28, 1983. In the said order, the learned Judge directed, inter alia, that the impugned order dissolving the managing committee of the said Society would stand, but the Board of Administrators appointed thereunder should be replaced by two other joint administrators who were members of the Bar and were appointed by the learned Judge. Thereafter, it appears that the said joint administrators were subsequently replaced by Sri Mrinmoy Bagchi, Advocate, who was appointed the "sole administrator" of the said Society by an order dt. Sept. 8, 1983 of B. C. Basak, J.

( 6 ) SINCE the said Bank is a Central Co-operative Bank, the election of Directors of the said Bank for the purpose of constitution of the managing committee thereof is required to be held by convoking delegates of the co operative societies which are affiliated to the said Bank as provided in R. 21 of the Rules. The election of Directors or the constitution of the managing committee is held in the annual general meeting of the said Bank.

( 7 ) ON the eve of the annual general meeting of the said Bank fixed on Nov. 18, 1984, the said Society which is affiliated to the said Bank sent Sri Siddhartha Sankar Bhattacharjee, its member and Chairman as its delegate.

( 8 ) THE delegate of the said Society, Sri Siddhartha Sankar Bhattacharjee filed his nomination as a candidate for election to the post of a Director of the managing committee of the said Bank to be reconstituted at the annual general meeting. At the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers by the Election Officer appointed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Howrah, one Ashit Hazra raised an objection against the eligibility of the said Siddhartha Sankar Bhattacharjee to stand as a candidate for election to the office of Director of the managing committee of the said Bank, on certain allegations which will be stated presently.

( 9 ) IT was alleged, inter alia, that the said Siddhartha Sankar Bhattacharjee entered into a contract with the said Society by letting out his own premises to the said Society on a monthly rental basis. Further, it was alleged that he was the owner of a printing press, and he entered into contracts with the said Society for printing. Accordingly, it was alleged that in view of S. 23 (4) (b) of the Act, he was