JUDGMENT :

By the Court.-The petitioner C/M Azad Cooperative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ''Society'') is a duly registered cooperative society under theUttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'').

2. The last admitted election of the Committee of Management of the Society was held on 15.10.2016, as per its bye-laws for a period of five years. The term therefore was to expire on 14.10.2021. It appears that on 17.6.2021, the Additional Housing Commissioner exercising his powers under Section 35 read with Section 38 of the Act held that all the members of the Committee of Management had forfeited their rights to continue and, therefore, superseded the elected Committee of Management. Exercising his powers under Sections 29 (4-B) of the Act and under Rule 438 of theUttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules''), he further appointed a four member interim Committee consisting of various State officials.

3. On 2.1.2022, under the orders of the Chairman of the interim Committee of Management of the Society, Sri Pradeep Kumar Raman, ACM-1, Bareilly, on the basis of the resolution dated 20.12.2021(resolution No. 2) removed the Secretary Smt. Pushpa Singh, the petitioner No. 2. Also by the same order Sri Prempal Singh, son of Sri Mahendra Pal Singh (Sugarcane Observor, Godown Incharge), Cane Development Board, Chandpur was appointed as the Secretary of the Society. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri H.R. Mishra assisted by Sri K.M. Mishra submitted that the order dated 17.6.2021 passed under Section 38 of the Act was in breach of Rules 437 & 438 of the Rules read with Section 35 of the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after the passage of five years from the last admitted election dated 15.10.2016, the term of the Committee of Management expired on 14.10.2021. In between, he submits that when the order dated 17.6.2021 was passed the same was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and without adhering to the provisions of Section 38 of the Act.

6. Thereafter, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the interim Committee of Management of the Society was appointed on 17.6.2021 then, thereafter, its term expired after the passage of six months from the date of the appointment and he, therefore, submitted that the order which was passed on 2.1.2022 basing on the resolution dated 20.12.2021 was against the provisions of Section 29(4-D) as the interim Committee of Management which was constituted on 17.6.2021 lived its term till 17.12.2021 i.e. after the six months had expired from the date of the constitution of the interim Committee of Management. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Section 29 (4-D) of the Act, the same is being reproduced here as under :

''29(4-D). The interim Committee appointed under sub-section (4-B) shall cease to exist after the expiry of six months from the date of its appointment or reconstitution of the Management Committee after election thereof whichever is earlier.''

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a bare perusal of Section 29 (4-D) shows that the interim Committee of Management had ceased to exit after the expiry of six months from the date of its appointment and, therefore, even the resolution which was passed before the passing of the order dated 2.1.2022 on 20.12.2021 was without any jurisdiction.

8. Sri Nirankar Singh learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 filed a counter-affidavit and questioned the authority of the petitioners to file the writ petition. He also submitted that if the resolution dated 20.12.2021 was being questioned then the petitioners had an alternative remedy of approaching the Registrar under Section 128 of the Act and under Section 128 the Registrar had power to annul any resolution