( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Guna (hereinafter referred to as the 'bank')is a financial Bank registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). Under the bye-laws of the Bank there is a provision for constitutive a Managing Committee (Board of Directors)consisting of elected members and three members nominated by the Government. The elections were held under the bye-laws and the petitioner and non-petitioners nos. 2 to 10, 12 and 18 were duly elected as members of the said Managing committee. The Managing Committee of the Bank took charge on 6-11-68. On 234-70 the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies gave a notice to show cause why it should not be superseded in view of the charges specified therein (vide annexure 'a' ). The Committee submitted a reply to the said charges vide Annexure 'b'. On receipt of the reply the joint Registrar passed an order dated 22-6-70 vide annexure 'c' superseding the Committee for a period of one year. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner submitted an appeal to the State Government under Section 77 of the Act. As there was a delay in disposal of the appeal the non-petitioner No. 12 Bhagwati Prasad Sharma filed a petition (M. P. No. 198 of 1970) for a writ of mandamus directing the Government to decide the appeal expeditiously. The petition was allowed and in pursuance of the direction of this Court the appeal was decided. It was dismissed on 12-5-61 vide Annexure 'd'. According to the petitioner the order of supersession is illegal and void because it was passed without holding any enquiry and giving the members of the committee a personal hearing. He has further questioned the validity of the order on the ground that it was passed without previous consultation with the Reserve Bank as required by proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the order of supersession may be quashed.

( 3 ) IN the return filed on behalf of the Government the Joint Registrar Cooperative societies and other authorities concerned it is averred that the order of supersession is perfectly valid and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) THE learned Advocate General who appeared on behalf of the State raised a preliminary objection that the Reserve Bank, the Bank and the members of the Ad hoc Committee who have been appointed to manage the affairs of the Bank in place of the Committee should have been joined as parties to this petition. So far as the Reserve Bank and the Central Bank are concerned no relief has been claimed against them and they do not appear to be directly concerned with the result of this petition. In the matter of supersession the Reserve Bank merely performs a consultative function and it cannot be treated as proper or necessary party. As for the Central Bank its interests are effectively represented by the registrar. Co-operative Societies who is a party to this petition. We do not, therefore, consider it to be a proper or a necessary party. As for the members of the Ad Hoc Committee it is no doubt true that they will be affected by the result of this decision in case the order of supersession is quashed and, therefore, they may be interested in supporting the order of supersession, but on that ground alone they cannot be considered to be necessary parties. Ad Hoc Committee came into existence only after the order of supersession was passed. It did not and could not have any voice in the proceedings that led to this supersession.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate General referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in udit Narainsingh v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786 in this connection. It was held therein that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively: a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made, but whose presence is necessary for