Removal of Board members under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 is valid if procedures align with statutory requirements, even if not objection raised at the meeting.

JUDGMENT :

REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA, J.

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the mode and manner of their removal from the Board of the respondent no. 3.

2. The petitioners were all members of a duly elected Board of the respondent no. 3. The petitioners have been removed from the Board by way of a resolution dated October 19, 2025, requisitioned by the 32 delegates which includes the Board members.

3. Pursuant to such requisition, a general meeting was called upon due to the notice to the petitioners on September 11, 2025.

4. A meeting was held on October 19, 2025, in which the resolution (29 in favour and 12 against), to remove the petitioners from the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 3, was adopted. The petitioners were present in the meeting and had also cast their vote against the resolution.

5. Pursuant to such resolution of October, 19, 2025, the petitioners were informed on 24^th October, 2025, that they had been removed from the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 3.

6. These are the admitted facts, which the appearing parties do not dispute.

7. There is one element of dispute in the entire conspectus of facts, that being the number of the members of the Board of the Directors.

8. The petitioners contend that there are 15 members, while the respondent no. 3 contends that there are 17.

9. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, raised the following points :

(i) The notice calling for the special resolution indicated only an action under Section 31(1)(b) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”);

(ii) Section 31(1)(b) refers to “no-confidence” against the entire Board and in view of such resolution, being adopted under Section 31(1)(b) of the said Act, the entire Board stood dissolved and not merely the expulsion or removal of the petitioners from the Board.

(iii) Under Section 31(5) of the said Act, the Board stands dissolved immediately upon such resolution being taken, ostensibly for a “no- confidence” motion against the entire Board.

(iv) He further submits that the removal of the petitioners was requisitioned on rather vague terms. Principally that the requisitionists had alleged that the petitioners as Board members had not attended “several meetings”. This he argues is not just vague but falls short of the statutory mandate of six consecutive meetings. Thus, only if a Board member abstains from six consecutive board meetings, he becomes liable to be removed from the Board. He places Rule 44 (f) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules).

(v) He, further, submits that in view of the resolution of October 19, 2025 not being in consonance with the Act and the Rules, is liable to be set aside and the petitioners be reinstated on the Board of Directors.

(vi) Alternatively, he has also submitted that if the resolution is upheld, the entire Board stands dissolved and it would be trite to call for fresh election through the Election Commission.

(vii) The writ petitioner has approached the Court immediately thereafter on October 29, 2025.

(viii) Mr. Bhattacharya has referred to a decision reported in Ujjal Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal, 2013 (1) CHN (CAL) 458.

10. Since the respondents had a point of maintainability of the writ petition as there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioners.

11. Mr. Bhattacherjee, has also addressed on this issue and submitted as under:

a) Section 37 of the said Act empowers the Registrar to summon the concerned office bearers whether the Chairperson or the Chief Executiv