Point of Law: If the motion for no confidence fails for want of quorum or lack of requisite majority at meeting, no subsequent meeting for considering motion of no confidence shall be held within six months of date of previous meeting.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Nirankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Satyam Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, Shri Bal Mukund Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Shri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

“(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice/order dated 22.06.2022 issued by the opposite party no 2, in the interest of justice.

(II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties especially the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 herein not to give effect to the order dated 20.06.2022, issued by the opposite party no. 2 herein, in the interest of justice.

(III) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to strictly adhere to the provisions as contained in the UP Cooperative Societies Act 1965 and the UP Cooperative Societies Rules 1968, in the interest of justice.

(IV) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of Justice.”

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Committee of Management of the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Ghaziabad in the election held on 10th-11th May, 2018. There are total 12 members of the Committee of Management. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that these 12 members have elected the petitioner as Chairman in the election held on 11th May, 2018. The respondent nos. 5 to 11 are elected members of the Committee of Management, who presented a notice for no confident motion in terms of Rule 455, 456 and 457 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules 1968’) on 17.6.2022. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice for no confidence motion, the respondent no. 2 fixed the date, time and place of meeting and nominated the Additional District Magistrate (City), Ghaziabad as Presiding Officer for the meeting. However, on the date fixed i.e. 20.7.2022 the meeting could not be held by the Presiding Officer for administrative reasons as reflected in his order dated 19.7.2022 adjourning the meeting for 3.8.2022.

4. Today, Shri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Satyam Singh, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents have stated on instructions that today's meeting of no confidence motion cannot be held since the Presiding Officer has tested Corona positive and is in quarantine. They further informed that under the circumstances, a notice in terms of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 458 of the Rules, 1968 shall be issued by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad within three days and on the date fixed the meeting shall be held.

Submissions

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under:

(i) Under Rule 457 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, notice of no-confidence motion shall personally be presented by at least three members to the specified authority i.e. District Magistrate, whereas in the present case, the notice for no-confidence motion was not presented personally before the District Magistrate i.e. respondent no. 2. Since the notice for no-confidence motion itself is defective, therefore, the impugned notice for no-confidence motion dated 22.6.2022 is invalid.

(ii) In the impugned notice of no-confidence motion dated 22.6.2022, there is no compliance of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 458 and, therefore, the notice is defective.

(iii) Since, 35 days period for meeting as provided in the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 458 has expired, therefore, the meeting for no confidence cannot be held by the respondent no. 2 i.e. District Magistrate.

6. Learned Standing Counsel and learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 and 7 support the impugned order.

Reasons an