Jurisdiction of Registrar questioned.

before whom the petitions came on for hearing made the following Order of reference:This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kakinada, dated 15th October, 1951, made under section 51(1)(b) of the Madras Act VI of 1932, in respect of election of Directors of the Pithapuram Co-operative Bank, held on 28th July, 1950. The question in this writ is whether a dispute in regard to the election of the members to the Board of Management is one touching the business of a registered society within the meaning of section 51(1) of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act. There are two Bench decisions of this Court expressing conflicting views on the interpretation of the words “Touching the business of the Society”. I find it rather difficult to steer clear of the conflict. Rajamannar, C.J. and Viswanatha Sastri, J., in C.M.P.Nos.6730 and 7779 of 1950 held that a dispute in regard to the expulsion of a member is a dispute touching the business of a registered Society whereas Govinda Menon and Panchapakesa Ayyar, JJ., held in W.P.Nos.3317 and 318 of 1951, that such a dispute does not touch the business of the Society. Though the question in this case does not relate to the expulsion of a member but-only with regard to the election of a member to the Board of Directors I think in view of the aforesaid conflict in the decisions it is a fit case for being disposed of by a Bench. Post W.P.No.79 of 1952, also along with the above petition.

These petitions in pursuance of the above order coming on for hearing before the Bench (Rajamannar, C.J. and Venkatarama Ayyar, J.) on Thursday the 33rd day of October, 1952, and the Court directing that these petitions to be posted before a Full Bench and the petitions came on for further hearing before the Full Bench.

D. Narasa Raju and K.B. Krishnamurthi, Advocates for the Petitioners in both the petitions.

The Advocate-General (V.K. Thiruvenkatachari) and The Government Pleader (P. Satyanarayana Raju) for Respondents Nos.2 to 5 in W.P.No.632 of 1951 and for the Respondent in W.P.No.79 of 1952.

J.V. Suryanarayana Rao for Messrs. M.S. Ramachandra Rao and M. Krishna Rao, Advocates for Respondent No.1 in W.P.No.632 of 1951.

The Court made the following Order:Writ Petitions Nos.632 of 1951 and 79 of 1952.-These petitions were referred to a Full Bench as conflicting views were expressed regarding the interpretation of the expression “dispute touching the business of a registered Society” occurring in section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act (VI of 1932), particularly in two unreported Bench decisions of this Court.

Writ Petition No.632 of 1951 is the main petition and Writ Petition No.79 of 1952 is consequential and the decision in the former will govern the decision in the latter also.

The dispute relates to the election of Directors of the Pithapuram Co-operative Bank, Ltd., by its general body. The Bank was registered as a Co-operative Bank under the Co-operative Societies Act, (Central Act II of 1912). A copy of its bye-laws has been filed in these proceedings and marked as Exhibit A. Though the Bank was registered under the Central Act, it is deemed to be registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act (VI of 1932) and its bye-laws shall so far as the same are not inconsistent with the express provisions of the Madras Act, continue to be in force until altered or rescinded. Vide section 62. The Madras Act repealed the Co-operative Societies Act of 1912 (Central) in so far as it applied to this State. In the arguments before us, reference was made to the provisions of the Madras Act, and both sides proceeded on the basis that the question raised has to be determined by a proper interpretation of section 51 of the Madras Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). This is mentioned at the outset for the reason, that bye-law 60 of the Bank was framed in acc