Manipur High Court

Th. Sabanam Devi vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 21 June, 2021

                                                                                     P age |1
SHAMUR Digitally signed
        by
AILATPA SHAMURAILATP
        AM SUSHIL                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
M       SHARMA                                 AT IMPHAL
SUSHIL Date:
        2021.06.21
SHARMA 12:48:54 +05'30'                     WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019

                              Th. Sabanam Devi, aged about 41 years, D/o. Th.
                              Surangajit Singh of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
                              Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
                                                                            ... PETITIONER
                                                     -VERSUS-


                      1.      The State of Manipur represented by the Principal
                              Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Co-operation),
                              Government of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat,
                              Babupara, P.O.& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
                              Manipur-795001.


                      2.      The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, Office
                              at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West
                              District, Manipur-795004.


                      3.      The Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and
                              Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative
                              Bank Ltd., MG Avenue, Imphal, Manipur, Imphal Urban
                              Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Head Office), MG Avenue, P.O.
                              Imphal & P.S. City Police, Imphal West District,
                              Manipur-795001.


                      4.      The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., MG Avenue,
                              Manipur, represented by its Director / General Manager,
                              Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., office at MG




                 W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C)
                 No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C))
                 No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in
                 MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019
                                                                     P age |2



             Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City Police, Imphal West
             District, Manipur-795001.
                                                       ... RESPONDENTS

5. Huidrom Kesho Singh, aged about 65 years of Singjamei Kakwa Huidrom Leikai, P.O. Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei Imphal West District, Manipur-795003.

6. Th. Debeshwari Devi, aged about 45 years of Singjamei Makha Waikhom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

7. Khomdram Brajakumar Singh, aged about 57 years of Uripok Sorbon Thingel, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

8. Moirangthem Shyam Singh, aged about 60 years of Heirangoithong Singjamei, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

9. Leimapokpam Chaoba Singh, aged about 75 years of Singjamei Chirom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

10. Waikhom Jiten Singh, aged about 49 years, S/o (L) W.

Chaoba Singh of Heingnag Mayai Leikai, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur-795002.

... PRIVATE RESPONDENTS

W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P age |3

W.P. (C) No. 1059 of 2019

1. Shri Khoibam Achou Singh, aged about 81 years, s/o.

Late Kh. Tomallo Singh, resident of Nagamapal Soram Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795001.

2. Shri Thokchom Surangajit Singh, aged about 73 years s/o late Th. Jogendra Singh, resident of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

.....PETITIONERS.

-VERSUS-

1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat, Babupara, P.O.& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, Office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

3. The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., MG Avenue, Manipur, represented by its Director / General Manager, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., office at MG Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City Police, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

4. Shri T. Pradwipkumar Singh, Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of the Directors of the IUCB

Ltd. MG Avenue, Imphal, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City PS, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795001.

5. R.K. Kirankumar Singh aged about 64 years, s/o. R.K.

Chandrahas Singh of Yaiskul Sanakhwa Yaima Kollup, P.O. & P.S - Imphal West, Manipur.

6. Shri Thokchom Dilipkumar Singh aged about 58 years, s/o late Th. Nipamacha Singh of Koirou Thongju Part-II, P.O. Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei, District-Imphal East, Manipur.

7. Shri Kangjam Meghachandra Singh aged about 60 years s/o late K. Tomchou Singh of Malom Tuliyaima, P.O Tulihal & P.S. Singjamei, District-Imphal West, Manipur.

8. Shri Chabungbam Tombi Singh aged about 72 years s/o late Ch. Angangjao Singh of Khurai Puthiba Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, District-Imphal West, Manipur.

9. Shri R.K. Mombisana Singh aged about 69 years s/o late R.K. Thambalsana Singh of Uripok Panchayat Maning, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Imphal, Distri-Imphal West, Manipur.

....RESPONDENTS

WP (C) No. 207 of 2019

1. Yumnam Kumar Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o Y.

Pishak Singh of Nagamapal Phougeisangbam Leikai,

P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795001.

2. Rock, aged about 47 years, S/o (L) Angphu of Langol Khunou, P.O. Pallel & P.S. Tegnoupal, Chandel District, Manipur-795135.

3. Th. Sabanam Devi, aged about 41 years, D/o. Th.

Surangajit Singh of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

... PETITIONERS

-VERSUS-

1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, Office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S.Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

3. The Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., MG Avenue, Imphal, Manipur, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Head Office), MG Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City Police, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

4. The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., MG Avenue, Manipur, represented by its Director / General Manager, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., office at MG Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City Police, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

... RESPONDENTS

MC (W.P. (C) No. 17 of 2020) Ref: WP (C) NO. 1009 of 2019

1. Huidrom Kesho Singh, aged about 65 years of Singjamei Kakwa Huidrom Leikai, P.O. Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei Imphal West District, Manipur-795003.

2. Th. Debeshwari Devi, aged about 45 years of Singjamei Makha Waikhom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

3. Khomdram Brajakumar Singh, aged about 57 years of Uripok Sorbon Thingel, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

4. Moirangthem Shyam Singh, aged about 60 years of Heirangoithong Singjamei, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

5. Leimapokpam Chaoba Singh, aged about 75 years of Singjamei Chirom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

6. Waikhom Jiten Singh, aged about 49 years, S/o (L) W.

Chaoba Singh of Heingnag Mayai Leikai, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur-795002.

......APPLICANTS

-VERSUS-

1. Thikchom Sabanam Devi, aged about 41 years, D/o.

Th. Surangajit Singh resident of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur- 795001.

....PRINCIPAL RESPONDENT

2. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat, Babupara, P.O.& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

3. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Manipur / Administrator, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and its Office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur, Pin-795004.

4. The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. represented by its Dy. General Manager who is the Chief Executive Officer (i/c) and its Office at MG Avenue, P.O. Imphal &

P.S. City P.S, District Imphal West, Manipur, Pin- 795001.

5. Shri T. Pradwipkumar Singh, Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of the Directors of the IUCB Ltd. MG Avenue, Imphal, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City PS, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795001.

.....RESPONDENTS

MC (WP (C) No. 19 of 2020 [Ref: W.P. (C) No. 1059 of 2019]

1. R.K. Kirankumar Singh aged about 64 years, s/o. R.K.

Chandrahas Singh of Yaiskul Sanakhwa Yaima Kollup, P.O. & P.S - Imphal West, Manipur.

2. Shri Thokchom Dilipkumar Singh aged about 58 years, s/o late Th. Nipamacha Singh of Koirou Thongju Part-II, P.O. Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei, District-Imphal East, Manipur.

3. Shri Kangjam Meghachandra Singh aged about 60 years s/o late K. Tomchou Singh of Malom Tuliyaima, P.O Tulihal & P.S. Singjamei, District-Imphal West, Manipur.

4. Shri Chabungbam Tombi Singh aged about 72 years s/o late Ch. Angangjao Singh of Khurai Puthiba Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, District-Imphal West, Manipur.

5. Shri R.K. Mombisana Singh aged about 69 years s/o late R.K. Thambalsana Singh of Uripok Panchayat

Maning, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Imphal, Distri-Imphal West, Manipur.

....APPLICANTS.

-VERSUS-

1. Shri Khoibam Achou Singh, aged about 81 years, s/o.

Late Kh. Tomallo Singh, resident of Nagamapal Soram Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795001.

2. Shri Thokchom Surangajit Singh, aged about 73 years s/o late Th. Jogendra Singh, resident of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

.....PRINCIPLE RESPONDENTS.

3. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat, Babupara, P.O.& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

4. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, Office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

5. The Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., MG Avenue, Imphal, Manipur, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Head Office), MG Avenue, P.O.

Imphal & P.S. City Police, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

6. The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., MG Avenue, Manipur, represented by its Director / General Manager, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., office at MG Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City Police, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

7. Shri T. Pradwipkumar Singh, Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of the Directors of the IUCB Ltd. MG Avenue, Imphal, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City PS, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795001.

... RESPONDENTS

MC (WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 [Ref: W.P. (C) No. 207 of 2019]

Yumnam Kumar Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o Y. Pishak Singh of Nagamapal Phougeisangbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795001.

....APPLICANT

-V E R S U S-

1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, Office at Lamphelpat, P.O.& P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

... RESPONDENTS.

MC (W.P.(C) No. 33 of 2020) {Ref: MC (W.P(C) No. 17 of 2020} {Ref: WP (C) NO. 1009 of 2019}

Khomdram Brajakumar Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o. Late Kh. Achouba Singh of Uripok Sorbon Thingel, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

......APPLICANT

-VERSUS-

1. Huidrom Kesho Singh, aged about 65 years of Singjamei Kakwa Huidrom Leikai, P.O. Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei Imphal West District, Manipur-795003.

2. Th. Debeshwari Devi, aged about 45 years of Singjamei Makha Waikhom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

3. Moirangthem Shyam Singh, aged about 60 years of Heirangoithong Singjamei, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

4. Leimapokpam Chaoba Singh, aged about 75 years of Singjamei Chirom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

5. Waikhom Jiten Singh, aged about 49 years, S/o (L) W.

Chaoba Singh of Heingnag Mayai Leikai, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur-795002.

.....PRINCIPAL RESPONDENT

6. Th. Sabanam Devi, aged about 41 years, D/o. Th.

Surangajit Singh of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

7. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat,

Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

8. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Manipur / Administrator, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and its Office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur, Pin-795004.

9. The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. represented by its Dy. General Manager who is the Chief Executive Officer(i/c) and its Office at MG Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City P.S, District Imphal West, Manipur, Pin- 795001.

10. Shri T. Pradwipkumar Singh, Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of the Directors of the IUCB Ltd. MG Avenue, Imphal, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City PS, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795001.

.....RESPONDENTS

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioners :: Mr. M. Hemchandra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Th. Rohitkumar, Adv., Mr. H. Ishwarlal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sh. Poireiton, Adv.

For the Respondents :: Mr. N. Ibotombi, Sr. Adv., Mr. A. Rommel, Adv., Mr. Lenin Hijam, Addl.AG, Mr. Ajoy Pebam, Adv., Mr. D. Julius Riamei, Adv..

Date of Hearing and reserving Judgment & Order :: 09.04.2021

Date of Judgment & Order :: 21.06.2021

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

W.P.(C) No 1009 of 2019 has been filed by the

petitioner Sabanam Devi to quash the orders dated

22.10.2019, 26.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019 passed

by respondents 2 and 3 respectively.

2. W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2019 has been filed by the

petitioners - Khoibam Achou Singh and Thokchom Surangajit

Singh to quash the letter bearing No.78 Q Co-op/Case/Civil

Revision No.17 of 2019 dated 16.12.2019 addressed to the

State Government counsel.

3. W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019 has been filed by the

petitioners - Yumnam Kumar Singh, Rock and Sabanam Devi

directing the respondents to expedite/finalise/execute the

process of election of Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban

Co-operative Bank Limited, Manipur in view of the notice

dated 20.11.2018 issued by the Returning Officer, Election to

the Delegates and Board of D rectors of the Imphal Urban Co-

op Bank Limited and to consider the representation of the

petitioner dated 28. 2.2019.

4. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is

one and the same, all three writ petitions and the

miscellaneous cases filed in the writ petitions were taken up

together and disposed of by this common order.

W.P.(C) No. 1009 of 2019 :

5. The case of the petitioner is that she is a qualified

and eligible Candidate to contest in the election of the Board

of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited

and the election of the Board of Directors was supposed to

have been held on 18.02.2018. However, the same has been

hanging fire for one reason or the other, thereby rendering the

Bank function without any Board of Directors for the past

couple of years. According to the petitioner, the Returning

Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of Directors of the

Imphal Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, issued a notice dated

20.11.2018 announcing ten candidates as eligible to contest

the election of the Board of Directors or election of President,

Vice-President and other Executive Members from the Board

of Directors for the formation of Board of Director for

management of Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited by

the representatives of the members of the Bank. However, the

election has not been conducted till date.

6. Further case of the petitioner Is that the Registrar

of Co-operative Societies issued orders dated 22.10.2019,

26.11.2019 and 29.11.2019 stating that the nomination papers

of the Delegate of Board of Directors of Imphal Urban Co-

operative Bank Limited for the term 2017-2018 to 2021-2022,

which were rejected due to non-appearance of candidates/

proposer/ seconder at the time of scrutiny on 17.11.2018 and

19.11.2018, shall be re-scrutinised on 05.12.2019 between 11

am and 2 pm at the office of the Imphal Urban Co-operative

Bank Limited without any plausible reasons and thereby

publishing the result of re-scrutiny notice dated 05.12.2019 by

the Returning Officer. Challenging all these four orders, the

petitioner has filed the writ petition.

7. Resisting the writ petition, the official respondents

filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the Returning Officer

issued a notice dated 12.11.2018 informing all candidates for

election of Board of Directors for the Imphal Urban Co-

operative Bank Limited for the term 2017-2018 to 2021-2022

to the effect that at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers,

all candidates should be present personally along with the

proposer and seconder on 17.11.2018 and 19.11.2018,

respectively. The Returning Officer, by another notice dated

20.11.2018, notified 15 persons out of which five candidates

were notified to be not eligible to contest the Election of the

Board of Directors for Violation of Clause 32 of the bye laws of

the Bank and the remaining 10 candidates were found to be

qualified to contest the election of the Board of Directors of the

Bank. It is stated that aggrieved by the notice dated

20.11.2018, five candidates have filed Co-operative Revision

Case No.3 of 2018 before the Manipur State Co-operative

Tribunal. By the order dated 18.3.2019, the Tribunal set aside

the notice dated 20.11.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner and one Yumnam Kumar Singh have filed

C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 before this Court and this Court, by an

order dated 18.12.2019, disposed of the revision holding that

since the order of the Tribunal was specifically in relation to

five ineligible candidates, the question of setting aside the

order of the Tribunal on that score does not arise and no order

is required to be passed at the behest of the revision

petitioners, who apparently have no cause of action to file the

revision as no relief was sought against the petitioners by the

five ineligible candidates.

8. It is also stated that one Waikhom Jiten Singh

filed W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 before this Court praying to allow

him to participate in the election by conducting fresh scrutiny

and he has also prayed for a direction to consider his

representation dated 27.3.2019. By an order dated 10.9.2019,

the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the Registrar

Co-operative Societies to consider and dispose of the

representation dated 27.3.2019 in accordance with law within

a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy Of the

order. Pursuant to the order dated 10.9.2019, the Registrar of

Co-operative Societies issued an order dated 22.10.2019

directing the Returning Officer to re-consider the nomination

papers which were rejected at the time of scrutiny due to non-

appearance of candidates/proposer/ seconder on the ground

that Rule 26 of the Rules of Election of Delegates and

Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited does

not mention about the personal presence of the proposer and

seconder. In pursuance of the order dated 22.10.2019, the

Returning Officer issued an order dated 26.11.2019 informing

all concerned that the nomination papers which were rejected

due to non-appearance of the candidates/proposer/ seconder

at the time of scrutiny shall be re-secrutinised on 05.12.2019.

9. It is stated that by another notice dated

05.12.2019, the Returning Officer circulated to all concerned

that while re-scrutinizing the nomination papers on

05.12.2019, the nomination papers of six delegates have been

found to be in order. However, out of six, one delegate was

found not eligible to contest the election for violation of Clause

33 of the bye-laws of the Bank. Aggrieved by the order dated

05.12.2019, the ineligible delegate filed W.P.(C) No. 675 of

2020 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order

dated 22.12.2020 directing the Registrar, Co-operative

Societies to consider and dispose of the representation dated

20.12.2019 within a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of the copy of the order and the said representation is

now bending before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for

disposal.

10. Respondents 5 to 10 filed affidavit-in-opposition

stating that all Shareholders of the Bank, including the

petitioner and respondents 5 to 10, admitted that there is a

need for holding the election of the Board of Directors of the

Bank at the earliest. It is stated that the delegates namely R.K.

Kirankumar Singh, Thockchom Dilipkumar Singh, Kangjam

Meghachandra Singh, Chabungban Tombi Singh and

R.K.Mombisana Singh have challenged the order dated

20.11.2018 whereby declaring the said six delegates not

eligible for contesting in the election of Board of Directors of

the Bank before the Co-operative Tribunal by filing

Cooperative Revision Case No.3 of 2018. By the order dated

18.3.2019, the Tribunal, set aside the order dated 20.11.2018.

Challenging the order of the Tribunal, two delegates filed Cp

p.No.17 of 2019 and the Bank had also filed C.R.P.No.20 of

2019 challenging the very same order dated 18.3.2019. While

C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 was pending, the Registrar of Co-

operative Societies issued a letter bearing No.78-Q-

Coop/Case/Civil Revision No.17 of 2019 dated 16.12.2019 in

compliance of the order dated 18.3.2019. By the order dated

18.12.2019, C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 was dismissed and

C.R.P.No.20 of 2019 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty

to file afresh.

11. It is stated that W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 was filed

by respondent No.10 to consider his representation dated

27.3.2019 and after hearing both parties, this Court by an

order dated 10.9.2019 directed the Registrar to consider and

dispose of the representation dated 27.3.2019 within a time

frame. According to private respondents, neither the petitioner

nor any other person has challenged the order dated

10.9.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019.

12. According to respondents 5 to 10, if really, the

petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 10.9.2019, he

ought to have approached the appropriate forum and,

therefore, there is no wrong in the order dated 22.10.2019

and, in fact, the order dated 22.10.2019 was issued in

compliance of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019.

Moreover, until and unless the order dated 10.9.2019 is

modified or quashed, the petitioner has no right to challenge

the order dated 22.10.2019 issued by the Registrar of Co-

operative Societies. According to respondents 5 to 10, there is

no wrong in the orders dated 22.19.2019, 26.11.2019 and

29.11.2019 as the petitioner has failed to challenge the order

dated 10.9.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019.

W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2019:

13. The case of the petitioners is that the first

petitioner is Group-D member and the second petitioner is

Group-F member and are elected delegates of their groups

and also qualified to contest the election of Board of Directors.

Further case of the petitioners is that being aggrieved by the

acts of the authority for non-holding the election, the

petitioners and others had submitted a representation dated

28.2.2019 to the authority to complete the election process of

the Board of Directors of Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank

Limited as early as possible.

14. According to the petitioners, five candidates

namely R.K. Kirankumar Singh, Thockchom Dilipkumar Singh,

Kangjam Meghachandra Singh, ChabungbamTombi Singh

and R.K.Mombisana Singh are found not eligible to contest the

election for violating bye-laws of the Bank had filed Revision

Petition No.3 of 2018 before the Manipur State Co-operative

Tribunal at Lamphelpat and the same was disposed of on

18.3.2019 with an observation that the notice dated

20.11.2018 issued by the Returning Officer was not

sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, the said notice

was set aside. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.3 2019,

Yumnam Kumar Singh and Sabanam Devi filed C.R.P.No.17

of 2019 wherein this Court passed an interim order dated

16.4.2018 suspending the order dated 18.3.2019 passed by

the Tribunal in Co-operative Revision Case No.3 of 2018.

15. According to the petitioners, one W. Jiten Singh,

who was one of the candidates of Group-I in respect of the

Board of Directors/Delegates of Imphal Urban Co-operative

Bank Limited had filed W P.(C) No.722 of 2019 by concealing

the material facts and records and made serious allegations

against Yumnam Kumar Singh, who belongs to Group-I by

filing applications to the authorities on 12.11.2018, 20.11.2018

and also concealing the order dated 18.03.2019 passed in the

Co-operative Revision Case No 3 of 2018 and other

connected matters and obtained an order dated 10.09.2019

without making necessary parties. Therefore, the impugned

Orders dated 22.10.2019, 26.11.2019 and the corrigendum

dated 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019 cannot stand in the eyes of

law.

16. The private respondents 5 to 9 filed affidavit-in-

opposition stating that the Returning Officer issued notice

dated 20.11.2018 whereby declaring the private respondents

as ineligible candidates for Contesting the Board of Directors

of the Bank. Aggrieved by the said Notice, the private

respondents filed Co-operative Revision Case No.3 of 2018

and by the order dated 18.3.2019, the Tribunal quashed the

notice dated 20.11.2018. Challenging the Order of the

Tribunal, two elected delegates filed C.R.P. No 17 of 2019 and

the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited filed C.R.P. No

20 of 2019 before this Court. Pending C.R.P., the Registrar of

Co-operative Societies issued a letter dated 16.12.2019 in

compliance of the order dated 18 3 2019 passed by the

Tribunal and finally, C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 was dismissed by

this Court on 18.12.2019, while C.R.P.No.20 of 2019 was

withdrawn by the Bank with liberty to file afresh.

17. According to the private respondents, there is no

wrong in the impugned orders and moreover the petitioners

have no right to challenge the impugned orders unless the

order dated 10.9.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 is

modified or quashed. Consequently, the private respondents

prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as the same was filed

suppressing the material facts.

W.P. (C) No.207 of 2019:

18. The case of the petitioners is that they are all

qualified/eligible candidates/delegates to the election of the

Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank

Limited. The term of the earlier Board of Directors expired in

the year 2017 and as such the election of the Board of

Directors was supposed to have been held on 18.2.2018,

however, the same has been postponed time and again for

one reason or the other thereby rendering the Bank without

any Board of Directors for the past couple of years. According

to the petitioners, though the Returning Officer announced ten

candidates as eligible to contest the election of the Board of

Directors of the Bank, the election has not been conducted till

date. Hence, the petitioners have filed the writ petition.

19. It appears that the respondents have not filed the

counter affidavit in the writ petition.

20. Assailing the impugned Orders dated 22.10.2019,

26.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019, Mr. M. Hemchandra,

the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)

No.1009 of 2019 submitted that the petitioner is a qualified

and eligible candidate to the election of the Board of Directors

of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and that the

election was Supposed to have been held on 18-02-2018.

However, for one reason or the other, the election has been

postponed and that the Bank is running without the Board of

Directors for the past three years.

21. The learned senior counsel further submitted that

the Returning Officer had issued a notice dated 20.11.2018

announcing ten candidates as eligible candidates to contest

the election of the Board of Directors or the election of the

President, Vice-President and other Executive Members from

the Board of Directors. While so, the Registrar of Co-operative

Societies issued the impugned order dated 22.10.2019

directing the Returning Officer to re-consider the nomination

papers which were rejected at the time of scrutiny due to non-

appearance of the candidates/proposer/seconder and that

pursuant to the direction of the Registrar, the Returning Officer

issued the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 that the

nomination papers shall be re-scrutinised on 05.12.2019 at 11

am to 2 pm at the office of the Bank. In the said notice, it was

also directed that the re-scrutiny shall be conducted as per

Rule 26 of the Rules of Election of Delegates and Board of

Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited. He

would submit that without any acceptable reasons, by the

impugned order dated 05.12.2019, the Returning Officer

published the result of re-scrutiny.

22. The main argument of the learned senior counsel

for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 is that one

Waikhom Jiten Singh, who is one of the candidate of Group-I

in respect of the Board of Directors of Imphal Urban Co-

operative Bank Limited and who failed to the contest in the

Board of Directors of Group-I, has filed W.P.(C) No.722 of

2019 by concealing all relevant facts and levelling allegation

against the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019, who belongs

to Group-I by filing representations dated 12.11.2018 and

20.11.2018 to the concerned authority and also concealing the

order dated 18.3.2019 passed in the Co-operative Revision

Case No.3 of 2018 and its revision being C.R.P.No.17 of

2019, has obtained an order dated 10.9.2019 without making

the affected parties, including the petitioner as respondents in

the Said writ petition. Thus, the official respondents under the

shadow of the order of this Court dated 10.9.2019 passed in

W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 has issued the impugned

notices/orders in favour of the private respondents without

having any source of law. Therefore, the learned senior

counsel for the petitioner, prayed for quashing of all three

impugned orders set out in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019. The

learned senior counsel for the petitioner also prayed to

expedite the process of election of the Board of Directors of

the Bank in view of the notice dated 20.11.2018.

23. In support, the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Jobra and others v. State of Haryana and

others, AIR 2019 SC 542.

(ii) J&K Housing Board and another v.

Kunwar Sanjay Krishnan Kaul and others,

(2011) 10 SCC 714.

(iii) Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International

Airport Authority of India and others,

(1979) 3 SCC 489.

(iv) Ramesh Rout v. Rabindranath Rout,

(2012) 1 SCC 762.

(v) Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

others, (2010) 2 SCC 114.

(vi) Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional

Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly

Division, Bareilly and others, (2010) 4

SCC 728.

(vii) Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration

and others, (2011) 10 SCC 86.

(viii) Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and another v.

State of Gujarat 8nd others, (2004) 5 SCC

(ix) Union of India and others v. Major S.P.

Sharma and others, (2014) 6 SCC 351.

24. Mr. Ishwarlal, the learned senior counsel for the

petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 1059 of 2019 submitted that the

petitioners are elected delegates of their respective groups

and also qualified to contest the election of Board of Directors.

He would submit that the Returning Officer has notified that

any interested and eligible shareholders who is desirous of

being a Candidate may file their nomination papers in the

prescribed Form-A along with Form-C to the authority

concerned within the election schedule mentioned in the

notification.

25. The learned senior counsel further submitted that

the Returning Officer has issued several notifications on

different dates that the programme for election will be changed

due to extension of scrutiny time which were re-scheduled due

to inability to complete the preparation of valid/invalid

nomination papers within the schedule time. Thereafter, the

election was re-scheduled on 29.4.2018 and the Returning

Officer issued a notice thereby observing that no documents

submitted by 15 candidates have been found in order.

However, as per the order dated 19.11.2018, the authority

found five candidates not eligible to contest the election for

violation of Clause 33 of the bye-laws of the Bank and that 10

candidates are found to be qualified to contest the election.

26. The learned senior counsel next submitted that

being aggrieved by non-holding of the election, the petitioners

and others have submitted a representation dated 28.2.2019

to the concerned authorities to complete the election process

as early as possible. In the mean time, W.P.(C) No.207 of the

2019 has been filed by Yumnam Kumar Singh and Th.

Sabanam Devi seeking to expedite the process of the election

and the said writ petition is also connected with W.P.(C)

No.1009 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2019.

27. The learned senior counsel then submitted that

Sabanam Devi filed W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 to quash the

impugned order dated 22.10.2019 issued by the Registrar of

the Co-operative Societies and also to quash the impugned

order dated 26.11.2019 issued by the Returning Officer and

also sought to quash the impugned notice dated 05.12.2019

issued by the Returning Officer and the same is also

connected with W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2019.

28. Per contra, Mr. Lenin Hijam, the learned

Additional Advocate General appearing for the official

respondents submitted that the impugned order dated

22.10.2019 was issued by the Registrar of Co-operative

Societies in compliance with the direction of this Court dated

10.9.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 and that the

impugned order dated 26.11.2019 and the notice dated

05.12.2019 issued by the Returning Officer are the

consequential order of the order dated 22.10.2019. In other

words, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that

this Court while passing the order dated 10.9.2019, issued

direction to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to consider

the representation dated 27.3.2019 in accordance with law.

Therefore, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in order to

correct the mistake which has been committed earlier by the

Returning Officer, issued the order dated 22.10.2019 and as

such there is no illegality in the order dated 22.10.2019 and

the consequential order/notice respectively.

29. The learned Additional Advocate General further

submitted that by the notice dated 20.11.2018, the Returning

Officer notified the list of 15 candidates, out of which five were

notified to be not eligible to contest the election and the

remaining ten candidates were found to be qualified to contest

the election. However, the said notice dated 20.11.2018 has

been set aside by the Co-operative Tribunal in Co-operative

Revision Case No.3 of 2018 dated 18.3.2019. He would

submit that aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2019,

C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 was preferred, wherein the High Court

clarified the order dated 18.3.2019 and as such, the same has

attained finality. Arguing so, the learned Additional Advocate

General submits that the official respondents are willing to

complete the election of the Board of Directors of the Bank as

early as possible and this Court may direct the official

respondents to hold the election of the Board of Directors of

the Bank from amongst the elected delegates de-novo strictly

as per the bye-laws of the Bank.

30. Opposing the prayers made by the petitioners,

Mr. Ibotombi, the learned senior counsel for the private

respondents 5 to 10 submitted that in compliance with the

order dated 10.9.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019, the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued an order dated

22.10.2019 and thereafter, in pursuance of the order dated

22.10.2019, the Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates

and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank

Limited issued the order dated 26.11.2019 and, as such, there

is no wrong in the orders dated 22.10.2019 and 26.11.2019

and that the petitioner has no right to challenge the order

dated 26.11.2019 unless said order dated 10 9 2019 in

W.P.(C) No. 722 of 2019 is modified or quashed.

31. As far as the notice dated 20.11.2018 is

concerned, the learned senior counsel submitted that the

ineligible candidates for contesting the Board of Directors

mentioned in the notice dated 20.11.2018 have filed Co-

operative Revision Case No.3 of 2018 and by the order dated

18.3.2019, the said notice dated 20.11.2018 was quashed by

the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2019 passed

by the Tribunal, two elected delegates have filed C.R.P.No.17

of 2019 and pending C.R.P., the Registrar of Co-operative

Societies issued a letter dated 16.12.2019 in compliance with

the order dated 18 3 2019. He would submit that by the order

dated 18.12.2019, CRP No 17 of 2019 was disposed of by this

Court without interfering with the order dated 18.3.2019

passed in the Revision and thus, prayed for dismissal of the

writ petitions.

32. This Court considered the Submissions made by

the learned counsel for the respective parties and also

perused the materials available on record.

33. The grievance of one of the petitioners is that the

authorities have issued the impugned orders/notices without

any cogent reasons and published the result of re-scrutiny.

According to the said petitioner, the order dated 22.10.2019 of

the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, wherein direction has

been issued to the Returning Officer to re-consider the

nomination papers which were rejected at the time of scrutiny

due to non-appearance of candidates, does not hold good in

the eyes of law. Further, the act of the authorities in issuing

the order dated 26.11.2019 is arbitrary in nature and there is

no provision of re-scrutiny under the Manipur Co-operative

Societies Act. Further, the subsequent impugned notice dated

05.12.2019 was also issued without having any statutory

backing and all three orders are bad in law and the same

deserve to be set aside.

34. The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited is a

registered Cooperative Society registered under Section 5 of

the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976. The term of the

Board of Directors has expired long back and the term of the

Board of Administrator appointed in its place was extended

from time to time and the Board of Administrator could not

conduct election of the regular Board of Directors. in exercise

of power conferred under Section 78(1) of the Act, the

authority concerned issued an order dated 30.3.2015

appointing the then Deputy Registrar as Administrator of the

Bank, but the said Administrator failed to conduct the election

and thereafter, the Deputy Secretary (Co-operative) issued

another order dated 31.3.2016 appointing another Board of

Administrators of the Bank for a period of six months or until

further orders. Since the said Board of Administrators failed to

conduct the election, the Deputy Secretary (Co-op) issued

another order dated 15.6.2016 appointing one Tokpam

Khumanasana Singh as a Board of Administrator for a period

of six months or until further orders As the said Board of

Administrator also failed to conduct the election, the Deputy

Secretary issued an order appointing Ng.Thaba Singh as an

Administrator.

35. It appears that upon the urgent necessity to hold

election for appointment of the Board of Directors at the

earliest without any delay, the Government of Manipur, in

exercise of powers conferred under Section 78(A)(i) of the Act,

was pleased to appoint the Board of Administrators of the

Bank for a period of six months or till a new Board of Directors

whichever is earlier by issuing the order dated 22.5.2017. On

13.7.2017, the Governor of Manipur, in exercise of the powers

conferred, appointed a new Board of Administrators.

Aggrieved by the said order, W.P.(C) No.536 of 2017 came to

be filed by the aggrieved persons. Pending W.P.(C) No.536 of

2017, one K.Sharat Singh had filed W.P.(C) No.549 of 2017

directing the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for holding

election at the earliest date. After hearing the parties, this

Court disposed of both the writ petitions vide order dated

06.9.2017. The operative portion of the order reads thus:

"In view of the above, both the writ petitions

are allowed and consequently, the

impugned orders dated 13.7.2017,

22.5.2017 and 17.3.2017 are quashed with

the direction that the Registrar, Co-

operative Societies shall insure that the

election of the Board of Directors of the

Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank is held for

which the Registrar shall appoint a

Returning Officer who will conduct the

election under Rule 4 of the Rules of

Election of Board of Directors. Till the

election is held in accordance with law, the

interim order passed by this Court on

26.7.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 549 of 2017 shall

continue to operate and accordingly, the

Registrar, Co-operative Societies shall

continue to take charge of Administration

and Management of the Imphal Urban Co-

operative Bank of new Board of Directors is

constituted. It is further directed that the

process of election shall be completed

within 45 (forty-five) days from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order."

36. Since the authority concerned failed to hold the

election within 45 days, a Contempt Case (C) No 205 of 2017

was filed and thereafter, the Assistant General Manager of the

Bank issued notice dated 6.11.2018, whereby publishing a

provisional list of voters admitted up to 3.2.2016 for election of

delegates for the term 2018-2019 to 2022-2023 and by the

notice dated 24.11.2018, a final list of members was

published. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies also

appointed the Returning Officer and in exercise of powers

conferred under Clause 23 of the Election Rules to the

Delegates and Board of Directors of the Bank, the Returning

Officer issued a notification dated 28.11.2017 notifying that the

election of the delegates and Board of Directors for the term

2017-2018 to 2021-2022 will be held as per the schedule

mentioned therein. After various adjournment and/or changes

in the schedule, the election of delegates was completed and

the candidates have also been elected from their respective

groups. Thereafter, the Candidates have also submitted their

nomination papers. By the Notice dated 12.11.2018, it was

informed that all candidates should present personally along

with the Proposer and seconder during scrutiny of groups i.e.,

Group-A to F on 17.11.2018 and Group-G to L on 19.11.2018.

37. It appears that subsequent upon the scrutiny of

the groups for election of Board of Directors, the Returning

Officer issued a notice dated 20.11.2018 stating that ten

candidates were found to be eligible to contest the election of

the Board of Directors and the name of the petitioner

Thokchom Sabanam Devi found at Serial No.4. The ineligible

and eligible candidates have been stated in the notice dated

20.11.2018. For proper adjudication, the names of the

candidates set out in the notice dated 20.11.2018 is extracted

herein below:

"Ineligible candidates:

1.Rajkumar Mombisana Singh

2.Rajkumar Kirankumar Singh

3.Chabungbam Tombi Singh

4.Kangjam Meghachandra Singh and

5.Thockchom Dilipkumar Singh

Eligible candidates:

1.Leimapokpam Dhananjoy Singh

2.R.K.Tony Singh

3.Khuraijam Ajit Singh

4.Thokchom Sabanam Devi

5. Thingbaijam Bimol Singh

6.Yumnam Kumar Singh

7.Rock

8.Wangkhem (O) Bounibala Devi

9.Maibam (O) Binashaki Devi and

10.Wangkheimayum Surjitkumar Singh"

38. Aggrieved by the non-holding of the election of

the Board of Directors, the petitioners Sabanam Devi and

Yumnam Kumar Singh have filed W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019

seeking to expedite the process of election of the Board of

Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited.

39. In the meanwhile, aggrieved by the notice dated

20.11.2018, the five candidates, who were found ineligible to

contest the election of the Board of Directors have approached

the Manipur State Co-operative Tribunal by filing Co-operative

Revision Case No.3 of 2018. By an order dated 18.03.2019,

the Tribunal quashed the notice dated 20.11.2018. The

operative portion of the order reads thus:

"40. This is not disputed by both parties that

the petitioners are elected delegates and they

are allowed to take the nomination papers

and the nomination papers which they took for

election of Board of Directors were allowed to

Submit for scrutiny and the scrutiny were

completed on 17.11.2018 to 19.11.2018. After

completion of scrutiny, the petitioners except

the petitioner No.5 are elected as un-contest

to their respective Group. However, final

result could not be declared due to pending

election of some Group.

41. This is also admitted by both parties that

the State Government has clarified by issuing

a letter being No.B/2/2016-Coop(IUCB)/17

dated 24/6/2017 that the incorporation of the

desired mechanism i.e. "a mechanism be

evolved by which Directors of UCBs, whose

Boards have been superseded, are not

allowed to become a Director of another UCB"

of RBI in the Cooperative Act of the State may

take time as the same needs legal vetting etc.

in the process of tabling the same on the floor

of the Assembly. In other words, the Manipur

State Co-operative Act is not amended till

date by incorporating the mechanism desired

by the RBI.

42. The Co-operative Revision Case No.2 of

2015 in which the order dated 30/3/2015 for

supersession was restored by this Tribunal

because it was not dismissed on merits of the

case.

43. The parties of the present Revision Case

have also agreed to continue the election

from the stage of scrutiny of nomination

papers of the election of Board of Directors of

the Bank.

Under the circumstances stated above, the

Notice being No.1/RO/Election/IUCB/2017

dated 20th November, 2018 issued by the

respondent No.3 is not sustainable in the eye

of law and accordingly, the same has been

quashed/set aside."

40. On a perusal of the order dated 18.3.20919, it is

clear that the aggrieved candidates have not impleaded the

eligible candidates listed Out in the notice dated 20.11.2018

as parties to the revision proceedings. On a further perusal of

the order dated 18.3.2019, it is seen that the respondents

therein have also raised an objection that the revision petition

was hit by non-joinder of necessary parties, as the petitioners

therein failed to make the candidates to contest the election of

the Board of Directors of the IUCB Limited despite having a

clear knowledge of the same to them. Admittedly, the Tribunal

has not answered the said point in its order. Further, there was

no convincing reason given by the Tribunal in setting aside the

notice dated 20.11.2018. Any order passed behind the back of

the party who was directly involved and/or affected is

unsustainable in the eyes of law. In the case on hand,

admittedly, the order dated 18.3.2019 has been passed

without knowledge of the eligible candidates, including the

petitioners herein.

41. It is also seen that aggrieved by the order dated

18.3.2019 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners in W.P.(C)

Nos.1009 and 207 of 2019 have filed C.R.P.No.17 of 2019

before this Court. Pending C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 and W.P.(C)

No.207 of 2019, respondent No.10 in W.P.(C) No.1009 of

2019, who belongs to Group-I, has filed W.P.(C) No.722 of

2019 seeking direction to allow him to participate in the

election of the Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative

Bank Limited by conducting fresh scrutiny and also to consider

his representation dated 27.3.2019. By the order dated

10.9.2019, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court

and it is relevant to extract certain paragraphs and the

operative portion of the order, which read thus:

"Mr.K.Roshan, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner

has also filed a representation before the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies,

Manipur/respondent No.2 on 27.03.2019

requesting for allowing him to participate in

the election of the Directors of the Imphal

Urban Co-operative Bank Limited by

conducting a fresh scrutiny.

It is also submitted that the petitioner shall

be satisfied if an order is passed directing

the respondent No.2 to consider and

dispose of the representation dated

27.03.2019.

Mrs. Sundari, learned G.A. appearing on

behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has no

objection.

In that view of the matter, writ petition is

disposed of by directing the Registrar of Co-

operative Societies, Manipur/respondent

No.2 to Consider and dispose of the

representation dated 27.03.2019 in

accordance with law within a period of 1

(one) month from the date of receipt of a

copy of the order of this Court.

With the above observations and directions,

writ petition is disposed of."

42. By the order dated 18.12.2019, C.R.P.No.17 of

2019 was disposed of. The operative portion of the order is

extracted hereunder:

"6. In this view of the matter, since this

order of the Co-operative Tribunal is

specifically in relation to 5 (five) other

ineligible candidates who are respondents

No.1-5 in the present case, the question

of setting aside the order of the Tribunal

on that score does not arise. No order is

required to be passed at the behest of the

petitioners who apparently have no cause

of action to file this civil revision petition in

view of the fact that no relief is sought

W.P.(C) Nos. 1009, 1059 and 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019; MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1059 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 171 of 2019 in WP(C) No. 207 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2020 in MC(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 1009 of 2019 P a g e | 47

against them by the 5 (five) ineligible

petitioners before the Tribunal in Co-

operative Revision Case.

7. Hence, the civil revision petition stands

disposed of accordingly."

43. It appears that in paragraph (4) of the order

passed in the C.R.P., this Court observed that the notice dated

20.11.2018 clearly states that 10 candidates are qualified and

eligible and there is no manner of indictment in so far as 10

eligible persons are concerned. This Court also held that the

plea of the revision petitioners that the notice dated

20.11.2018 and the consequential order of the Co-operative

Tribunal will affect all other eligible or qualified candidates has

no relevance and without substance. The Tribunal's order

cannot be made applicable to the 10 eligible candidates.

44. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners

submitted that contrary to the prayer made by respondent

No.10 in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 in his representation and

the Order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019, the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued the Impugned order

dated 22.10.2019 and that nowhere in the representation

dated 27.3.2019, Waikhom Jiten Singh (respondent No.10)

made a prayer for re-scrutiny Of the nomination papers.

Instead, he has prayed that the notice dated 12.11.2018

issued by the Returning Officer be cancelled.

45. On the above submission, when this Court

perused the notice dated 12.11.2018, it is seen that the

Returning Officer had called upon all the candidates for

election of the Board of Directors for the term 2017-2018 to

2021-2022 that at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers all

candidates should be present personally along with the

proposer and seconder during scrutiny of the groups on the

appointed date.

46. Admittedly, the private respondents have not

challenged the notice dated 12.11.2018. If really the private

respondents are aggrieved by notice dated 12.11.2018, they

ought to have challenged the same, but the private

respondents failed to do so. The nomination papers of the

petitioners herein and other candidates have already been

scrutinized by the authority and accordingly, the result has

been notified vide notice dated 20.11.2018. On the contrary, in

the impugned order dated 22.10.2019, the Registrar of Co-

operative Societies, by simply referring to the writ petition

number, directed the Returning Officer to re-consider the

nomination papers which were rejected at the time of scrutiny

due to non-appearance of candidates/proposer/seconder. The

order dated 22.10.2019 is extracted hereinbelow for

reference: -

"No. B-COOP/1/UCB/CASE/2019/995:

Whereas, the Order dated 10/09/2019 of the

Hon‟ble High Court of Manipur passed in

W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 directed respondent

No.2 (Registrar of Cooperative Societies,

Manipur) to consider and dispose of the

representation dated 27/03/2019 filed by

Waikhom Jiten Singh. And Whereas, the

Notice No.1/RO/Election/UUCB/2017, dated

12/11/2018 issued by the Returning Officer

to the election of delegates & BOD of IUCB

Ltd. (RO) demands the personal presence of

the Candidate along with his/her Proposer

and Seconder.

And Whereas, Rule No.26 of the Rules of

Election of Delegates and Directors of the

IUCB Ltd. does not mention about the

personal presence of the Proposer and

Seconder.

In the light of the above, the RO shall

reconsider the nomination papers which

were rejected at the time of Scrutiny due to

non appearance of Candidates/ Proposer/

Seconder.

This Order is issued in compliance of Hon‟ble

High Court of Manipur Order dated

10/03/2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of

2019."

As stated supra, the prayer in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 is not

to re-scrutinise the nomination papers and also this Court has

not passed any positive direction to re-scrutinise the

nomination papers which were rejected at the time of scrutiny

due to non-appearance of candidates/proposer/seconder while

disposing of W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019. There Is no dispute that

the notice dated 12.11.2018 demands the personal presence

of the candidate along with his/her proposer and seconder and

only after noting the personal presence of the candidate along

with the proposer/seconder, the order dated 20.11.2018 came

to be issued by the Registrar of C- operative Societies. Thus,

without disclosing the material facts and impleading the

eligible candidates, including the petitioners herein, the

ineligible Candidates have filed the revision before the

Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the private

respondents herein cannot take advantage of the order dated

18.3.2019 passed in the Co-operative Revision Case No.3 of

2018.

47. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, the High Court will always keep in

mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction.

If the petitioner does not disclose full facts or suppresses

relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the

Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without

adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved

in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from

abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of

the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and

correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are

suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the Writ

Courts would become impossible.

48. In Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2

SCC 326, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while

exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article

136 of the Constitution, the facts and circumstances of the

case should be seen in their entirety to find out if there is

miscarriage of justice. If the appellant has not come forward

with clean hands, has not candidly disclosed all the facts that

he is aware of and he intends to delay the proceedings, then

the Court will non-suit him on the ground of contumacious

conduct. In the case on hand, the private respondents have

failed to disclose the full facts and also suppressed the

relevant materials which would be clearly evident from the

materials available before this Court.

49. The impugned notice dated 26.11.2019 was

issued informing all the concerned that the nomination papers

of the Delegate of Board of Directors of Imphal Urban Co-

operative Bank Limited for the term 2017-2018 to 2021-2022

which were rejected due to non-appearance of

candidates/proposer/seconder at the time of scrutiny on

17.11.2018 and 19.11.2018 shall be re-scrutinised on

5.12.2019 as per Rule 26 of the Rules of Election of Delegates

and Board of Directors at the office of the Bank. The impugned

notice/order dated 26.11.2019 reads thus:

"No. 1/RO/Election/IUCB/2017: Whereas in

pursuance of orders by the Registrar of Co-

                    operative      Societies,      Manipur     No.     B-

                    Coop/1/IUCB/Case/2019              dated         22nd

October, 2019 it is hereby informed to all

concerned that the nomination papers of the

Delegate of Board of Directors of Imphal

Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. M.G.Avenue,

Imphal for the term 2017-2018 to 2021-2022

which were rejected due to non appearance

of Candidates/Proposer/Seconder at the

time of Scrutiny on 17/11/2018 and

19/11/2018 shall be re-scrutinised on

Thursday, the 5th Dec. 2019 at 11 am to 2

pm at the office of the Imphal Urban Co-

operative Bank Ltd. M.G.Avenue, Imphal.

Henceforth, the said rescrutiny shall be

conducted as per Rule No.26 of the Rules of

Election of Delegates and Board of Directors

of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd."

50. By referring to the provisions of the Manipur Co-

operative Societies Act, 1976, Manipur Co-operative Societies

Rules, 1977, Byelaws of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank

Limited and the Rules for Election of Delegates and Directors

of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, the learned

senior counsel for the petitioners submit that there is no

provision for re-scrutiny and therefore, the question of re-

scrutinise does not holds good in the eyes of law.

51. Rule 25 of the Rules of Election of Delegates and

Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited

provides:

"25. Filing of Nomination Paper:

An eligible member desirous of Standing as a

candidate for Directorship shall submit his/her

nomination paper in Form - „D‟ to the Returning

Officer before clear seven days of the date of

election. Proposer and seconder shall be of the

same Group of the candidate."

52. Rule 26 speaks of the scrutiny of nomination

paper, which reads as under:

"26. Scrutiny of Nomination Paper:

All nomination paper received in time shall be

scrutinized by the Returning Officer. During the

course of scrutiny, the Returning Officer may

demand reliable confidential reports from the

Bank regarding past relationship of the

candidate with the Bank. Nomination papers

found invalid by him shall be rejected and

reasons for rejection shall be noted on such

nomination papers."

53. As stated Supra, there is no provision for re-

scrutiny of the nomination papers, which were rejected at the

time of scrutiny. It is not the case of the private respondents

that earlier their nomination papers were not scrutinized by the

authority concerned before issuing the notice dated

20.11.2018.

54. At this juncture, the learned senior counsel for the

private respondents submitted that the petitioners herein have

failed to challenge the order dated 10.9.2019 passed in

W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019 and therefore, unless the order dated

10.9.2019 is quashed and/or modified, the petitioners have no

right to challenge the order dated 22.10.2019 issued by the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He would submit that in

compliance with the order dated 10.9.2019 in W.P.(C) No.722

of 2019, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has issued an

order dated 22.10.2019 and thereafter, in pursuance of the

order dated 22.10.2019, the Returning Officer has issued the

order dated 26.11.2019 and as such, there is no wrong in the

order dated 26.11.2019. Moreover, the petitioners have no

right to challenge the order dated 26.11.2019.

55. On a thorough perusal of the materials available

on record, this Court is of the view that it is not Necessary to

challenge the order dated 10.9.2019 passed in W.P.(C)

No.722 Of 2019, as the same was passed without going into

the merits of the Case and the direction issued was only to

consider and dispose of the representation dated 27.3.2019

submitted by Waikhom Jiten Singh. Moreover, Waikhom Jiten

Singh has not impleaded the petitioners and other eligible

candidates as respondents in the writ petition.

56. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 submitted that while disposing of

W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019, the important facts and records qua

pending cases before this Court, if placed by the learned

Government counsel, the order dated 10.9.2019 would not

have been passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019. In

the case on hand, as rightly argued by the learned senior

counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have failed to

furnish vital facts before this Court at the time of passing the

order dated 10.9.2019 in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019.

57. It is apposite to mention that while setting aside

the notice dated 20.11.2018, the Tribunal has not given &

specific finding as to under what ground the said notice was

unsustainable in the eyes of law. That apart, the petitioners

herein and the other eligible candidates mentioned in the

notice dated 29 11.2018 have not been made as parties in the

revision also. The only respondents are (i) The Registrar of

Cooperative Societies; (ii) The Deputy General Manager,

Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and (iii) The

Returning Officer.

58. The specific contention of the respondents in the

Co-operative Revision Case No.3 of 2018 is that the

petitioners therein were declared as ineligible candidates from

contesting the election of the Board of Directors for violation of

the Clause 33 of the bye-laws of the Bank and further 10

candidates were declared as qualified to contest the election

of the Board of Directors of the Bank. Further contention of the

respondents is that if the notice dated 20.11.2018 is quashed,

the rights of the candidates who were found to be qualified to

contest the election of the Board of the Directors of the Bank

will be adversely affected. Admittedly, in its order, the Tribunal

has not given any specific finding as to the rights of the

candidates who were found eligible to contest the election.

However, the Tribunal in its order recorded that the parties of

the revision have also agreed to continue the election from the

state of the scrutiny of the nomination papers of the election.

Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners

Sabanam Devi and Yumnam Kumar Singh have filed

C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 and while disposing of the C.R.P., this

Court observed that 10 candidates are qualified and eligible

and there is no manner of indictment in so far as 10 eligible

candidates are concerned.

59. On a perusal of the notice dated 20.11.2018, it is

clear that the Returning Officer, in the very first line stated that

"... While scrutiny of nomination papers for election of Board of

Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited,

M.G. Avenue, Imphal for the term 2017-18 to 2021-22 (5

years), it is observed that the documents submitted by the 15

(fifteen) candidates/delegates have been found in order".

Thus, it is clear that only upon the scrutiny of nomination

papers, the Returning Officer has issued the notice dated

20.11.2018 declaring 10 candidates eligible and 5 candidates

ineligible. Therefore, the alleged agreement recorded by the

Tribunal in its order dated 18.3.2019 that the parties of the

revision have also agreed to continue the election from the

state of the scrutiny of the nomination papers of the election is

without any basis. Hence, the private respondents by taking

shelter of the order passed in the revision cannot claim re-

scrutiny of the nomination papers submitted by them.

60. That apart, the impugned order dated 22.10.2019

issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is not in

accordance with the order passed in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019,

as in the said writ petition, this Court only directed the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies to consider and dispose of

the representation dated 27.3.2019 within a specified time.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order

dated 22.10.2019 has been issued without application of mind

and, particularly, contrary to the order passed in W.P.(C)

No.722 of 2019. Since the notice dated 22.10.2019 issued by

the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is not in consonance

with the direction of the Court in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2019, the

consequent order dated 26.11.2019 and the corrigendum

dated 29.11.2019 are also liable to be set aside. Since there is

no question of re-scrutiny of nomination papers, the

publication of result of re-scrutiny vide notice dated

05.12.2019 issued by the Returning Officer does not arise and

any re-scrutiny done by the official respondents will not affect

the rights of the petitioners herein and therefore, the notice

dated 05.12.2019 is also liable to be set aside.

61. As far as W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2019 is concerned,

the learned senior counsel for the petitioners Submitted that

while C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 is pending and also passed an

interim order dated 16.4.2019 suspending the order dated

18.3-2019 passed in Co-operative Revision Case No.3 of

2018, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies addressed the

impugned letter dated 16.12.2019 to the learned Government

counsel to move the High Court for disposal of the Revision

Case No.17 of 2019 to avoid any further legal complications.

62. According to the learned senior counsel, the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot under the law issue

such letter to the Government counsel by overlooking the

connected cases being W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019 and

C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 which were pending before this Court at

the relevant point of time. He would submit that the interim

order dated 16.4.2019 passed by this Court in the C.R.P. was

in force till 18.12.2019 when the C.R.P. was disposed of.

Moreover, there is no any provision for re-scrutiny in the Rules

for Election of Delegates and Director of Imphal Urban Co-

operative Bank Limited and as such the impugned letter dated

16.12.2019 is not maintainable in the eyes of law.

63. In the impugned letter dated 16.12.2019, the

Registrar of Cooperative Societies stated as under:

"In continuation of the letter of even No.

dated 11/12/2019 I am to state that in view

of the Order dated 18/03/2019 passed by

the Hon‟ble Co-operative Tribunal in

Revision No.3 of 2018, the 5 (Five) elected

candidates who have been declared not

eligible for contesting the election of the

Board of Directors (Directorial Candidates)

vide the Notice No.1/RO/Election/ICUB/

2017 dated 20/11/2018 issued by the

Returning Officer for election to the

delegates and Board of Directors of the

IUCB Ltd. will now be eligible for contesting

the said election. Further, the 10 (ten)

eligible candidates who were declared

eligible as per the aforesaid Notice No.1/

RO/Election/IUCB/2017 dated 20/11/2018

will also be allowed to contest the election.

Therefore, you are requested to move the

Hon‟ble High Court for disposal of Civil

Revision No.17 of 2019 to avoid any further

legal complicacies."

64. Since the referred C.R.P.NO.17 of 2019 has

been disposed of by this Court on 18.12.2019 upon hearing

the parties therein, now the question for setting aside the

impugned letter dated 16.12.2019 does not arise and

therefore, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1059 is liable to

be disposed of recording that the C.R-P.No.17 of 2019 has

already stands disposed of. Since the prayer in W-P-(C)

No.1059 of 2019 is to set aside the letter dated 16.12.2019

addressed to Shri S. Nepolean Singh, State Government

counsel and C.R.P.No.17 Of 2019 was disposed of, this Court

has not further elaborated upon the other submissions made

by the learned senior counsel qua the impugned notice/order

challenged in W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019.

65. Coming to W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019, the

grievance of the petitioners is that the term of earlier Board of

Directors expired long back and thus, there is a need for

holding the election for election of the Board of Directors of the

Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited at the earliest.

According to the petitioners, the election has been postponed

for one reason or the other for the past three years.

66. The learned Additional Advocate General submits

that the official respondents are willing to complete the

election of the Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-

operative Bank Limited as early as possible and this Court

may direct the official respondents to hold the election of the

Board of Directors of the Bank from amongst the elected

delegates de-novo strictly as per the bye-laws of the Bank.

67. It is true that the Board of Directors play a vital

role in the proper and smooth running of the Imphal Urban Co-

operative Bank Limited and delaying the election of the Board

of the Directors would definitely cause hindrance not only to

the Bank, but also to the general public.

68. The law provides that prior to the expiry of the

term of the Board of Directors, the process of election was to

be initiated, but in the instant case, the former Board of

Administrators appear to have failed to do that, as a result of

which, the parties have approached the Court and directed the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies to ensure that the election

of the Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative

Bank Limited is held for which the Registrar shall appoint a

Returning Officer who will conduct the election under the

applicable Rules.

69. As stated supra, upon calling for applications and

scrutising the same, the Returning Officer issued a notice

dated 20.11.2018 announcing 10 candidates as qualified to

contest the election of the Board of Directors of the Imphal

Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and in the earlier

paragraphs, this Court held that the impugned order/notice

dated 22.10.2019, 26.11.2019 and 05-12-2019 issued are not

in consonance with the order passed in the earlier

Proceedings. Therefore, this Court finds some force in the

prayer of the petitioners to expedite/finalise the process of

election of the Board of Directors in view of the notice dated

20.11.2018.

70. Since this Court delved into the matter on merits

based on the materials produced by both sides and

threadbare analysed the factual matrix and the law is well

settled and on a different footing than in the decisions cited,

this Court has not elaborated upon the decisions relied upon

by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)

No.1009 of 2019.

71. The private respondents in W.P.(C) No.1009 of

2019 have filed Miscellaneous Case No.17 of 2020 to vacate

the interim order dated 20.12.2019 passed in the writ petition.

Similarly, the private respondents in W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2019

have filed Miscellaneous Case No.19 of 2020 to vacate the

interim order dated 20.12.2019 passed in the writ petition.

72. It appears that this Court by the order dated

20.12.2019 directed the respondents therein to maintain status

quo as on 05.12.2019.

73. In view of the findings arrived at by this Court in

the earlier paragraphs, the question of vacating the interim

order dated 20.12.2019 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.1009 and

1059 of 2019 does not arise and the Miscellaneous Case

Nos.17 and 19 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No.1009 and 1059 of 2019

are liable to be dismissed.

74. In the result,

(1) W.P.(C) No.1009 of 2019 is allowed and

the impugned order dated 22.10.2019

passed by the Registrar of Co-operative

Societies and the consequential

notice/order dated 26.11.2019 and the

corrigendum issued by the Returning

Officer, Election to the Delegates and

Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-

operative Bank Limited and also the

impugned notice dated 05.12.2019 issued

by the Returning Officer are quashed.

(2) W.P.(C) No.1059 Of 2019 is disposed of,

as C.R.P.No.17 of 2019 stands already

disposed of vide Order dated 18.12.2019.

(3) W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019 is allowed. The

official respondents are directed to

expedite/finalise/execute the process of

election of Board of Directors of the Imphal

Urban Co-operative Bank Limited in view

of notice dated 20.11.2018 issued by the

Returning Officer so as to facilitate the

Bank to function properly and smoothly.

(4) The official respondents are also directed

to hold the election of the Board of

Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative

Bank Limited from amongst the elected

delegates strictly as per the bye-laws of

the Bank and also as per the applicable

laws as expeditiously as possible.

(5) M.C.No.17 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No.1009 of

2019 and M.C.No.19 of 2020 in W.P.(C)

No.1059 of 2019 are dismissed.

(6) Consequently, M.C.(WP(C)) No.33 of 2020

in M.C.(WP(C)) No. 17 of 2020 in W.P.(C)

No.1009 of 2019 and M.C.(WP(C)) No.171

of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.207 of 2019 are

also dismissed.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Sushil

Supreme Court Judgments

High Court Judgments

Campus Buzz

Library

Legal Education

More

Circulars & Notices

Th. Sabanam Devi vs The State Of Manipur Represented ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 133 Mani

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

Th. Sabanam Devi vs The State Of Manipur Represented ...2021 Latest Caselaw 133 Mani

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

Th. Sabanam Devi vs The State Of Manipur Represented ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 133 Mani