The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Registrar cannot exercise the power under Section 74D of the Societies Act when the election of the managing committee is restrained under the orders of the Court.

JUDGMENT :

Draft amendment is allowed in terms of draft. The same shall be carried out forthwith.

1. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule.

2. Since a short issue is involved, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing today.

3. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners-Cooperative Bank has assailed the communication dated 01.02.2023 issued to them calling upon to supply some details within a period of one day as mentioned therein. Instead of providing the details to the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gandhinagar, the petitioners-Cooperative Bank has filed the writ petition challenging the communication terming the same as “show cause notice.”

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. B.S. Patel, while placing reliance on the provisions of Section 74D of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short “the Societies Act”), has submitted that issuance of the show cause notice is without jurisdiction since the Ahmedabad Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No.16 of 2023 filed by respondent nos.2 and 3 has passed an interim order dated 30.01.2023 restricting for holding the election proceedings and the aforesaid suit is still pending and the interim order has been further extended. While placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amreli District Cooperative Sales and Purchase Union Limited vs. State of Gujarat, 1984 (2) G.L.R. 1244, he has submitted that the Registrar cannot exercise the power, where the election of the Managing Committee or functioning thereof after election is restrained under the orders of the Court. Thus, it is submitted that since the Board of Nominees has already passed an interim order restricting of holding of election, the Registrar does not have any power of appointing the custodian under the provisions of Section 74D of the Societies Act.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Patel has submitted that the election was scheduled to be held on 12.02.2023 and accordingly, a notification was also issued on 25.01.2023, which has been assailed by the private respondent nos.2 and 3 before the Board of Nominees in the aforesaid suit and hence, since in view of the proceedings filed by respondent nos.2 and 3, the show cause notice is required to be quashed and set aside as the same is de hors the provisions of Section 74D of the Societies Act.

6. While placing reliance on the Notification dated 29.09.2020 issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Central Government, by which an amendment is introduced under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short “the B.R. Act, 1949”), more particularly Section 36AAA thereof, it is submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Patel that it could be only the Reserve Bank of India, in consultation with the State Government, which can pass orders with regard to the change of management concerning the Co-operative Bank and not the Registrar. He has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 56 of the B.R. Act, 1949 and also the provisions of Section 33AA, which pertains to the control over the management under the B.R. Act, 1949. Thus, it is submitted that the Reserve Bank of India is the only authority, which can exercise the powers and not the Registrar and hence, the impugned show cause notice may be quashed and set aside.

7. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Vaghela appearing for the respondent no.4 has submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. He has submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench, on which reliance is placed by the petitioners, will not apply in the present case since in the present case the term of elected committee has already expired on 12.07.2020 and since no elections were held, the private respondents had approached the Board of Nominees by filing the suit for challenging the notification of the election as well as holding of election. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid suit, which was