( 1 ) THE petitioner, claiming himself to be a director of Krishak Bharti Co-op. Ltd. , New Delhi, has filed this petition seeking quashing of the resolution dated 20. 4. 95 passed by the Board of Directors of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. (IFFCC), for short) followed by a direction restraining the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioner s functioning as a director on the Board of Krishak Bharti Co-op. Ltd. (KRIBHCO, for short)- respondent No. 3.

( 2 ) KRIBHCO and IFFCO are both multi state co-op. Societies incorporated under and governed by the provisions of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter the Act , for short ). According to the petitioner he was nominated by the respondent No. 2 by resolution dated 6. 7. 94 on the Board of Directors of KRIBHCO in terms of bye-laws No. 37 and 38. The term of the nomination was for three years and would come to an end only in December, 1997. However, the petitioner s term as Director on the Board of IFFCO expired on 29. 3. 95. He was then informed that his nomination on the Board of KRIBHCO has been superseded by the Board of Directors of IFFCO in its meeting No. 215 dated 20th April, 1995.

( 3 ) THE respondents have raised two preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition. It is submitted that the dispute is one governed by Section 74 of the Act and hence is liable to be REFERRED TO for decision to the Central Registrar and that being an alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, the present petition does not lie. Secondly, it is submitted that what the petitioner is seeking is in substance enforcement of the bye-laws of the Cooperative Societies which bye-laws do not amount to "law" and hence a writ petition for enforcement of bye laws would not lie.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his right to represent IFFCO on the Board of KRIBHCO as director arises by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Act and in as much as the bye-laws framed by a multi state cooperative society are required to be approved by the Central Government to be effective, the same have the force of law and hence he is justified in filing the writ petition. It is also submitted that the petitioner is seeking enforcement of his right to remain on the Board of Directors in the capacity of a nominated director (and not an elected one) which dispute would not be covered by Section 74 of the Act.

( 5 ) SECTION 32 of the Act provides - "subject to the provisions of this Act and the Rules, there shall be a board of directors for every multi - state co-op. society consisting of such number of members as may be provided for under the bye-laws. "

( 6 ) KRIBHCO has framed the bye-laws. Bye-law No. 37 provides for the constitution of the Board of Directors. It provides, inter alia, for 5 directors to be nominated by IFFCO of whom one will be the functional director. Bye-law 38 reads as under :-

(I) The term of office of the elected members of the Board of Directors shall be 3 years provided, however, that if for any unavoidable reason, fresh elections are not held before the expiry of their term,they shall continue to hold office for a further period of one year or till the elections are held, whichever is earlier.

(II) The term of office of the Members of the Board who are nominees of the Government of India or IFFCO or Financing Institutions shall also be for a period of three years and co-terminus with elected Directors or as indicated from time to time by the Government or concerned Institution;

(III) The term of office of co-opted Director under Byelaw 37 (vii) shall be co-terminus with the elected members of the Board.

( 7 ) IT is clear that Section 32 of the Act merely speaks of their being a Board of Directors of every multi state Coop. Society. How many will be the members on the Board, what will be the source of their appointment, and what will be the term of each of the category of directors, are al