Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ajit Kumar Singh for the petitioners, Sri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajesh Tripathi for respondent No. 6, Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 to 3.

2. Counter-affidavit as well as supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5 to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioners. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

3. Brief facts of the case as emerge from pleadings of the parties are as follows; the District Co-operative Bank Limited, Gorakhpur is a Central Society within the meaning of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 1965 Act). The elections of the Directors of the Committee of Management of the District Co-operative Society Bank, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) were held on 5th October, 2009. The elections of the Chairman and Vice Chairman was held on 6th October, 2009 in which respondent No. 6 was elected as Chairman and petitioner No. 1 was elected as Vice Chairman. The three members of the Committee of Management submitted a requisition under Rule 144 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 1968 Rules) to the Secretary/General Manager of the Bank requisitioning a meeting of the Committee of Management to consider the disqualification of respondent No. 6 under Rule 454 of the 1968 Rules. The allegations in the requisition letter dated 10th August, 2011 against respondent No. 6 were to the effect that respondent No. 6 by filling a fictitious log book of vehicle (U.P. 53 S 4575) has embezzled an amount of Rs. 7.50 lacs towards rent and diesel through one Brijesh Bajpai, who is personal driver of respondent No. 6. It was alleged that agreement regarding the above vehicle was made with one Yogendra Yadav whereas the owner of the vehicle with effect from 1st February, 2010 is one Shailesh Prasad Dubey who has given an affidavit to the Secretary of the Bank for not entering into any agreement with the Bank regarding above vehicle nor receiving any amount towards rent and diesel. It was further alleged that by fictitiously giving the name of the vehicle embezzlement of Rs. 7.5 lacs has been made. It was also alleged that respondent No. 6 has incurred disqualification under Rule 453(1)(f) of the 1968 Rules, hence meeting be called for consideration of the matter under Rule 454 1968 Rules. On the aforesaid requisition letter meeting was convened by the Secretary on 19th August, 2011 which was postponed for 9th September, 2011. On 9th September, 2011 eight members of the Committee of Management out of 14 appeared at the Bank Head Office and claimed to have passed a resolution holding respondent No. 6 as disqualified under Rule 453(1)(f). It was mentioned in the resolution that respondent No. 6 and Secretary did not present themselves for the meeting and proceedings were authorised to be recorded by one of the Directors which, after recording, was given to the Secretary for implementation. It is claimed by the respondents that on 9th September, 2011 another Agenda was issued by the Secretary postponing the meeting to 22nd September, 2011 under the directions issued by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, received by his letter dated 8th September, 2011. On 10th September, 2011 the Secretary made a reference to the Joint Registrar under Rule 130 of the 1968 Rules praying that resolution dated 9th September, 2011 be annulled under Section 128 of the 1965 Act. Before the three Directors gave application for requisition of meeting on 10th August, 2011, a complaint by Shailesh Prasad Dubey claiming himself to be owner of the vehicle was submitted on 31st July, 2011 to the Joint Registrar. The allegations in the complaint was that he has purc