A. K. MATHUR, C. J.

( 1 ) THE questions involved in all the aforesaid writ petitions are all identical questions of law; therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) FOR convenient disposal of all the aforesaid writ petitions, the facts given in the case of, Bhawani Shanker Sharma v. State of M. P. , (W. P. No. 310 of 1997), are taken into consideration:

( 3 ) THE petitioner by this writ petition, has prayed that the reservation of the Hoshangabad Block Committee seat for other Backward Classes (OBC) is wholly illegal. It has also been prayed that a direction may be given to re-define and re-reserve the Block Committee Seats as per the procedure and norms laid down in the Notification of the State Government and fresh elections may be conducted only after the seats have been reserved as per the policy of the State Government and in accordance with law.

( 4 ) THE petitioner is a Director of the District Co-operative Central Bank of the Hoshangbad Block. Therefore, he is eligible to contest the election for Committee Members being held by the said Co-operative Bank, which is a Central Co-operative Bank. A notification dated 9-1-1997 was issued by the respondent No. 4/joint Collector-cum-Returning Officer, declaring the election programme. The election was scheduled to take place on 28-1-1997 at 11. 00 hrs. It is alleged that as per the said notification, a post of Director has been reserved forScheduled Caste category which is from Seoni Malwa and other seat has been reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman) from the Block Khirkya and further two more posts of Directors have been reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBC), the first one being from Hoshangabad Block and the second one being from Bankhedi Block. The petitioner is entitled to contest from Hoshangabad Block as a delegate of Vrahatakar Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Sawalkheda, District; Hoshangabad. It is alleged that the petitioner belongs to General Category. Therefore, he has filed the petition being aggrieved by the declaration of Hoshangabad Block Committee Seat as being reserved for O. B. C. and as such, he could not fight the election. Therefore, he has challenged this reservation by filing the present petition.

( 5 ) THE elections have already been taken place. The question was with regard to the reservation of various Blocks by issuing notifications; therefore, this petition was entertained.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent/state has submitted that the election has already been taken place; therefore, now the issues cannot be examined here and he invited our attention to Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' in short), which says that any dispute thouching the constitution, management or business, terms and conditions of employment of a society or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar. Therefore, it is submitted that this Court should not examine whether particular reservation in favour of S. C. /s. T. or O. B. C. has been rightly made or not. All disputes can only be decied by the Registrar under Section 64 of the Act. This submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/state appears to be justified.

( 7 ) ALL the disputes which have been raised in all the aforesaid petitions, do arise thouching the constitution and management of the Society. But the argument has been raised that, therefore, reserving this objection of the respondents, we may dilate some points on the subject for convenience of the future guidance.

( 8 ) A notification dated 26-2-1996 (Annex. P/6) has been issued by the State Government in exercise of power conferred u/s. 48 (3) of the Act, which reads as under:-"notification No. F-5-2-95-XV-1, dated 26th February, 1996, published in M. P. Rajpatra dated 26-2-1996, p. 126:-In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (No. 17 of 1961) and in super

Click Here to Read the rest of this document