D. RAJU, CJ.

(1.) These writ petitions are dealt with together since they involve one and the same matter, issues arising also being common and the learned Counsel's common submissions also. C.W.P. No. 439 of 1998.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed for a writ of prohibition to the respondents not to hold the meeting as proposed on 4.7.1998 for the purpose mentioned in the letter dated 25.6.1998 filed as Annexure P-7 and also to quash the letter dated 25.6.1998 and as a consequence thereof to restrain the respondents from removing the petitioner from the chairmanship of the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Wool Procurement and Marketing Federation Ltd.. Shimla-9 (hereinafter referred to as the Federation) and thereby allow the petitioner to complete his tenure of four years from the date of his election as Chairman. The further relief sought for was to quash the nominations made to the Board of Directors of the Federation by the proceeding dated 27.3.1998 and 6.4.1998 filed as Annexures P-5 and P-6 respectively. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Federation in question in the special general meeting of the members held on 1.12.1994 that in accordance with the provisions of the Act. the rules and the bye-laws governing the same under Rule 38 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Rules. 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), made under the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act. 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the term for which the Managing Committee of the apex society would be entitled to be in office is four years and the outgoing Managing Committee shall, unless the State Government otherwise directs, continue to function till another Managing Committee is constituted under the rules. The petitioner also claims that he was a Member of the H.P. State Legislative Assembly from Bharmour since December 1993, that he was sponsored from the Congress party to be its candidate from the said constituency though he ultimately lost the election and it was declared so on 6.6.1998, that the petitioner under a mistaken belief had tendered resignation from the chairmanship of the Federation before filing his nomination papers, thinking that the Chairman of the Federation is an office of profit though factually it is not so and the resignation was accepted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in their Notification No. Ahy-F(l0) 6/90 II. dated 31.1.1998. It is contended that in law the State Government. the first respondent, is not competent to accept the resignation of the petitioner from the chairmanship of the Federation and the same can be accepted or rejected only by the Board of Directors alone and in view of the same the petitioner claims to have submitted a letter dated 16.3. 1998 to the State Government withdrawing the resignation submitted under the mistaken belief and further on that basis asserted the claim that he continues to work as Chairman of the Federation. A meeting of the Board of Directors of the Federation was said to have been called by the 3rd respondent to be held on 27.3.1998 for which proper notices are claimed to have been sent to all members to discuss the matter in connection with the resignation of the petitioner from the chairmanship of the Federation in which it is further claimed six members including the petitioner were present and a resolution was adopted therein to the extent that the resignation of the petitioner accepted by the Government was not in consonance with the spirit of the bye-laws and the rules and. therefore. the petitioner may, therefore. continue as Chairman of the Federation. By making such a claim. an assertion is made by the petitioner that he was working as Chairman of the Federation without ciemur. According to the petitioner, the Congress party to which the petitioner belongs could not get majority in the Legislative Assembly. but the Bhartiya Janata Party with the Assistance of Himachal Pradesh Vikas Congress has formed the Government in March 1998 and that after such formation of the Government the ruling party allegedly started eroding the democratic set-up of the various Boards/Corporations by removing the Chairman/Vice-Chairman of some of the Corporations/Board, and in order to achieve such aims and goals the respondents were said to have issued the notification dated 27.3.1998 appointing the Additional Registrar Co-operative Societies till then working as General Manager as the Managing Director of the Federation. By yet another notification dated 27.3.1998 the second respondent was said to have nominated four Government nominees to the Board of Directors of the Federation and removed Shri Manoj Kumar and Shri Luder Chand Thakur without any lawful reason but only because they were the supporters of the petitioner. By yet another proceeding dated 6,4.1998 of the 2nd respondent again nomination of two more members to the Board of Directors of the Federation was said to have been made and it is claimed that the action of the respondents in removing two non-official members from the list of Board of Directors for nominating four official members to the Board in their notification dated 27.3.1998 and inducting two other non-official members by the proceeding dated 6.4.1998 is stated to be a calculated move on the part of the respondents to remove the petitioner from the chairmanship of the Federation and those nominations were against law. It is also stated in this regard that the nomination made as aforesaid had the effect of enhancing the number of the Board of Directors in violation of the provisions laid down by clauses 9, 9.1 and 9.2 of the bye- laws of the Federation and this is said to be a serious infirmity. A further allegation is made by the petitioner that subsequent to the said illegal appointment and nomination to the Board of the Federation on the instructions from those in the top, a letter dated 25.6.1998 came to be issued to consider the question about the resignation tendered by the petitioner from the chairmanship and hold election to the post of Chairman of the Federation on 4.7.1998. It is at that stage the petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking for the relief, as noticed supra.

(3.) When the matter came before the Court on 7.7.1998 on the representation made that one Kartar Singh was elected as Chairman of the 3rd respondent Federation, he was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 4 to the proceeding and notice was issued in the writ petition and the C.M.P. came to be disposed of as infructuous in view of the election of the 4th respondent as Chairman. The 1st and 2nd respondent filed a common counter- affidavit contending that there is no requirement stipulated under the provisions of the Act or the Rules or the bye-laws governing the respondent Federation for acceptance of resignation of the Chairman by any authority, that in terms of bye-law 10.4 of rhe respondent Federation, a Director shall ex post facto cease to hold office of the Director as soon as he resigns from his office and there is no provision for acceptance of his resignation and if the Chairman relinquishes his office on his own his resignation shall be deemed to be effective from the date of his resignation and he ceases to be the Chairman of the Board with immediate effect, and consequently no further action need be taken on the resignation by any authority under those circumstances, pointing out that the petitioner voluntarily relinquished his office on 28.1.1998 and since no action further was called for on his unilateral relinquishment of his office as Chairman which became effective from the date of his resignation, it is contended that the petitioner ceased to be the Chairman of the Federation in question and, therefore, he has no right to stake his claim for the office and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the said reason alone. It is contended that the petitioner having failed to avail of the alternative remedy available under Rule 38(6) of the rules read with Section 72(2)(c) of the Act, the writ petition is liable to be rejected as not maintainable and the proper remedy for deciding the disputed questions of fact and law would be the one provided under the Act. It is also contended that in the absence of a valid resolution authorising the petitioner to file the writ petition, the petitioner cannot claim himself to be the Chairman of the Federation and file this writ petition. It is the further plea on behalf of these respondents that no writ can lie against the Managing Director of the Federation in taking a decision to convene special meeting of the Board of Directors for 4.7.1998 and on this ground also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. There is no controversy that the petitioner has been elected as the Chairman of the respondent Federation in its meeting of the Board of Directors on 1.12.1994 and in normal course he had a term to serve, f not otherwise brought to an end. up to 30.11.1998. While placing reliance on Rules 35 and 38 of the rules which deal with the Constitution of the Managing Committee which would be the same as the Board of Directors, it is contended that all nominated/appointed members under sub- clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 38 are also eligible to cast their votes in the election oi the Chairman/Vice-Chairman in view of Rule 39(2) and Rule 59 of the Rules. While adverting to the fact that the petitioner submitted his resignation and relinquished the office on 28.1.1998 which was notified on 31.1.1998, though not strictly required in view of bye-laws No. 10.4 as per which the Chairman erases to be the Chairman of the Federation from the date his resignation itself and the further fact that he remained quite satisfied with the acceptance of the resignation, it is stated that he attempted to become the Chairman by using improper procedures and causing chaos in the administrative functioning of the respondent Federation. These respondents further state that the so-called meeting said to have been held on 27.3.1998 does not. disclose under whose chairmanship the meeting was convened and in the absence of any election Chairman to preside over the meeting to which only a few selected members owing allegiance to the petitioner appear to have been invited, no notice was sent to the nominated members of the Board more particularly to the 2nd respondent whose office is situated within 100 yards from the office of the Federation. Since the said meeting was convened for 27-3.1998 and the State Government made new nominations of the Board of Directors of the Federation such convening of the meeting in haste without following the procedural formality must be viewed to have been with achieving some ulterior motive and that the business said to have been transacted in the said meeting has no legal basis. While disputing the right of the petitioner to convene any meeting of the Board after relinquishing the office of the Chairman of the said Federation, it is stated that no notice for any such meeting was issued by the General Manager and the notices are claimed to be issued under the signatures of the Private Secretary who has no right or competence to issue such notices for the meeting and that too to only the seven Directors out of eleven Directors, has no validity in law. The allegation regarding the ruling party allegedly influencing through the various authorities to erode the democratic set-up of various organisations has been denied stoutly. The right of the State Government to appoint the Managing Director in exercise of its powers under Section 35-B of the Act, is asserted by these respondents. While adverting to Section 35(2) of the Act the State Government's right to replace the existing nominated members on the Board of Directors of the Federation is reiterated and it is also stated that the name of the General Manager has been withdrawn by the State Government from the notification dated 27.3.1998 by issuing another notification dated 15.7.1998 for the reason that the right to nomination by the State Government is only up to three members of the Board vide Section 35(l)(a)(iii) of the Act. Equally, it is asserted that in terms of Rule 39(1-A) of the rules the second respondent is entitled to appoint two additional members of the Board of the respondent Federation and that the appointment of Kunti Devi and Karam Singh to represent the proper interests of women and Scheduled Caste is also sought to be justified. It is also contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the withdrawal of two official members from the Board and inasmuch as the Constitution of the Board of Directors is with five elected members, three nominated members under Section 35 of the Act. two nominations of the Registrar under Rule 39 and the appointment of Managing Director in terms of Section 35-B, the strength of the Board at 11 is in consonance with Bye-law No. 9.1. Reliance is placed on Rule 39 to assert that the two nominations under the rules shall be made notwithstanding any limit prescribed in the bye-laws of the co-operative societies. Relying upon bye-law 12.2(XV), the Managing Director is said to be fully competent to convene the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Federation and there is no need for his getting any approval of the Chairman before such convening of the meeting envisaged under Rule 48 of the rules. It is pointed out that the petitioner also was at liberty and was not debarred from contesting the election of the Chairman of the Federation on 4.7.1998 and knowing well that he no longer enjoyed the confidence of the majority of the Board members he did not offer himself as a candidate for the election in the meeting for which proper notice had been sent to all the Directors including the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner deliberately chose not to take part in the meeting though was said to have remained present in the adjoining room to keep himself apprised of the developments relating to the election of the new Chairman. It is also stated that in the special Board meeting held on 4.7.1998 which was attended to by 9 out of 11 Directors of the Board the 4th respondent was unanimously elected as the new Chairman of the respondent Federation and consequently it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.

(4.) The third respondent has filed a separate reply wherein it is contended that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the acceptance of his resignation by the State Government by his own act and conduct, that the petitioner having himself handed over his resignation letter to the then Chief Minister Shri Virbhadra Singh and pressed for its immediate acceptance and having made it to be accepted with immediate effect as also by surrendering the car which had been provided to him by the Federation and thereafter by refusing to avail to the telephone facility and making payment of telephone bills from his own pocket. the petitioner acquiesced in the resignation and in view of the subsequent election of the 4th respondent as the new Chairman the writ petition itself has been rendered infructuous. The legal position about the need or otherwise for acceptance of the resignation on lines similar to the one urged by the 1st and 2nd respondents has been reiterated and it is also contended further that there is no provision for withdrawal of the resignation, once submitted. It is strenuously asserted that no notice for the so-called meeting on 27.3.1998 was issued by the 3rd respondent and the said meeting was not a formal and regular meeting of the Board of Directors and it is further said that the petitioner and a few of his associates on their own assembled in the Federation office and adopted the resolution claimed to have been made and inasmuch as the meeting had not been convened in accordance with the relevant provisions of law the so-called decision arrived at in the said meeting has no force in the eye of law. It is also stated that the 4th respondent who was elected Director and three nominated Directors never received any notice of the said meeting and their supporting affidavits have also been secured and filed by the respondent to substantiate this factual plea. The further claim of this respondent is that on and after the appointment of the Managing Director the General Manager of the Federation ceased to function as a Member-Secretary of the Federation and as a fact also he did not function as a Director of the Federation thereafter and that as a matter of fact a formal notification withdrawing his nomination was said to have been issued. For the said reasons, this respondent also prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The 4th respondent who has been elected as the Chairman on 4.7.1998 has also filed a separate counter-affidavit in which among other things it is contended that the petitioner cannot be allowed to now claim that he has submitted his resignation under the mistaken belief he being not an ignorant person and himself being formerly a Member of the Legislative Assembly since December 1993 he cannot plead ignorance of law and that, therefore. he is estopped from taking the plea of either ignorance of law or from asserting any right to withdraw his resignation which has become a fait accompli even on the date when it was submitted by the petitioner, voluntarily. This respondent also seriously challenged the validity of the so-called meeting said to have been held on 27.3.1998 and it is also stated that the said meeting was not convened by the Member-Secretary and the claim that one of the Directors by name Shri Nanak Chand who was undergoing treatment on 27.3.1998 at Bharmour, was present in the meeting was also false. In other respects, the election of the 4th respondent is sought to be justified as valid.

(5.) The petitioner has filed a rejoinder through his Counsel, who only has signed the same asserting the claims made in the writ petition, and further stating that he was using the telephone installed in the office room, that the petitioner did not voluntarily relinquish the office and also alleged that the 4th respondent has claimed falsely double T.A. and daily allowance which is a subject-matter of an FIR and investigation of police and that, therefore, he could not have been elected since he suffered with such a disqualification. It is also alleged that the 4th respondent has ceased to be a Director of the Board of the respondent Federation for not having attended three consecutive meetings having held on 11.4.1997, 22.8.1997, 16.12.1997 and 27.3.1998 in view of clause 10.4(iii) of the bye-laws of the Federation. The alleged illegality and infirmity in the nomination and withdrawal of the same of the members of the Board are reiterated and it is also further asserted by relying upon Rule 17 of the Rules that the resignation becomes effective only after acceptance/approval by the Board of Directors. It is also asserted that the petitioner continues to be the Chairman and in view of clause 7. l{iii) of the bye-laws it is only the Chairman who can preside over the meeting of the Board. It is further claimed that the meeting convened and held on 27,3.1998 under the chairmanship of the petitioner was legal. Political considerations are alleged to have played its role in what has happened and on that account the assertions alleged in the writ petition are reiterated. C.W.P. No. 469 of 1998.

(6.) This writ petition has been filed by one Nanak Chand seeking for the relief that the 4th respondent's election on 4.7.1998 be quashed and declared illegal and the 5th respondent who is the petitioner in C.W.R No, 439 of 1998 be declared legally elected Chairman of the Federation till his term is over and that the meeting convened for 1 5.7.1998 by the 4th respondent the newly-elected Chairman be declared to be illegal and be not allowed to be conducted. To avoid repetition, it may be stated that in all factual aspects relating to the submission of the resignation by the 5th respondent in this case, its acceptance, legality and propriety of such acceptance, the conduct of the meeting by the 5th respondent on 27.3.1998, the legality and validity of the withdrawal of the nominated Directors, which are stated by the petitioner in this case to be actual removal, and the nomination of two members to the Board of Directors, the averments and claims made by the present petitioner also are one and the same, in substance as those made in the pleadings in C.W.P. No. 439 of 1998. In addition thereto what was sought to be urged by means of the rejoinder filed by the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 439 of 1998 through his Counsel has also been reiterated as the grounds of the present writ petition itself. As could be seen from the claims in the petition as also from what has happened from the beginning of these cases, this writ petition is more by way of supplementing the claim of the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 439 of 1998 than asserting any right of his own in this matter.

(7.) The respondents, on being served with the notices have filed separate replies. So far as the 4th respondent is concerned, he filed his reply contending that this writ petitioner has no locus standi to state that the resignation of the 5th respondent was under a mistaken belief and such claim only betrays the collusion between the petitioner and the 5th respondent in filing the various writ petitions, that the 5th respondent on account of the resignation submitted by him long before, ceased to be the Chairman of the respondent Federation, that the so-called meeting said to have been conducted on 27.3.1998 is illegal and based on fraud and collusion, that the 4th respondent was not facing any enquiry as alleged by the petitioner, that after the resignation by the 5th respondent he never used the /chicles of the Federation from 28.1.1998 and for the residential telephone the 5th respondent only paid the bills though earlier to the resignation the Federation was paying the same. that the writ petition alleging disqualification against the 4th respondent is denied and that being a collusive proceeding made by way of abuse of the process of law, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(8.) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed separate counter -affidavit wherein they have reiterated the stand taken in the reply filed in the other writ petition and in addition thereto contended that the State Government has contributed rupees one crore sixteen lakhs towards share capital and Rs. 91 lakhs as grant-in-aid in the funds of the respondent Federation and, therefore, the Government was entitled to nominate three members on the Board of Directors in terms of Section 35 of the Act. While contending that normally the term of the chairmanship is co-terminus with the Board, the Chairman having been elected from amongst the Directors of the Board, it is contended that there is no provision under the Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the Federation also for acceptance of the resignation of the Chairman by the Board or any other authority and that the nomination made by the Government and the Registrar are quite in accordance with law and well within their reach. It is also asserted that Kartar Singh the 4th respondent was unanimously elected as the new Chairman of the Federation on 4.7.1998 by nine Directors of the Board including the petitioner, that no Director present in the meeting opposed the candidature of the 4th respondent for chairmanship and it is not given to the petitioner who did not even oppose the candidature of the 4th respondent to file the present writ petition at a belated stage. It is also asserted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the convening of the Board meeting as well as in the conduct of the election of the Chairman on 4.7.1998. Adverting to the allegation of disqualification made against the 4th respondent it is stated that a member of the Managing Committee who fails to attend four consecutive meetings can only be removed from the office with the prior approval of the Registrar as required under Rule 43(2) of the Rules and in this case no such approval was ever accorded and. therefore, the 4th respondent continued to be the Director of the Federation. The meeting said to have been conducted by the 5th respondent on 27.3.1998 is said to be an illegal and surreptitious one and the meeting convened on 4.7.1998 is said to be quite in accordance with Rule 48 of the rules read with Bye-law 12.2(xv) and that the Bye-law 7.1 has no relevance or application to the case in hand. It is also reiterated in this reply also that the 5th respondent was present at the time of the meeting heid on 4.7.1998 in which the 4th respondent was elected in the office of the Federation and he remained sitting in the adjoining room to keep himself apprised of the developments without choosing to offer himself as a candidate knowing fully well that he did not enjoy the confidence of the majority of the Board members. As for the allegation of double T.A. and dearness allowance said to have been drawn by the 4th respondent, it is stated that the Enforcement Department has not so far even completed the investigations and he did not, therefore. suffer any disqualification. This respondent accepted that with effect from 28.1.1998 the 5th respondent ceased to be the Chairman of the Federation and no action was required to be taken on his resignation by any authority and the office of the Chairman was lying vacant from that date and. therefore, the Managing Director of the Federation was right in convening the meeting of the Board on 4.7.1998 for electing the new Chairman on receipt of requisition from the members of the Board. While contending that the present strength of the Board is 11 only the nominations made by the Board under Sections 35 and 35-B of the Act and Rule 39 are said to be in order. The allegations of malice made are disputed and denied.

(9.) The 3rd respondent has also filed a reply reiterating the stand taken in the other writ petition and it is contended that insofar as M/s. Manoj Kumar and Luddar Chand Thakur have not challenged their withdrawal from the Board of Directors. the petitioner has no authority to challenge the same.

(10.) The petitioner has filed a rejoinder elaborating further the points taken in the writ petition to some factual allegations which, in our view. are unnecessary to set out in detail having regard to the limited nature and scope of the controversy that is urged by the contesting parties.

(11.) Shri H.K. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner in CWP No. 439 of 1998. vehemently contended that the resignation submitted under a misapprehension and mistaken impression to an authority and its acceptance by an authority not competent to do so under the Statute. Rules and Bye-laws of the Federation is void and ran e$t in law and. therefore, the petitioner must be declared to have continued in the office of the Chairman, particularly in the teeth of the decision of the Board of Directors of the Federation in the meeting held on 27.3.1998 which expressed confidence in him and that, therefore, there was no vacancy in the office of the Chairman for holding the election on 4.7.1998 or electing the 4th respondent as Chairman of the Federation. The learned Counsel invited our attention to the bye-laws of the Federation and the rules made under the Statute to support his claim that it is the Board of Directors, which has the power to accept the resignation and in the absence of any such acceptance by the Board there is no valid acceptance of the resignation and consequently the petitioner continued and still must be held to continue in office till his normal period up to the end of November 1998. The learned Counsel also contended that the removal of two Directors and nomination of new persons in their place is also illegal and that the Board of Directors itself being not properly constituted, the election of the 4th respondent by such a body is illegal and confers no rights in the 4th respondent to be the Chairman. The Constitution of the Board was also stated to be illegal on account of nominations, which had the effect of increasing the strength to 12 as opposed to the legitimate strength of 11. The further plea is that there was no proper notice for the meeting held on 4.7.1998 in which the 4th respondent was elected a.s Chairman and even that apart, the 4th respondent suffered a disqualification and stood ceased to be the Director of the Federation for non-attendance of three consecutive meetings and due to the misconduct committed in drawing double T.A. and Daily Allowance for which an FIR is pending and on that account also the election of the 4th respondent is illegal and invalid. Finally, political bias and harassment and vindictiveness has been alleged to vitiate the whole process and the learned Counsel prayed for that the writ may be allowed as prayed for.

(12.) Smt. Pratima Malhotra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in CWP No. 469 of 1998, one of the Directors of the Board of Directors of the Federation reiterated the same contentions, as urged by the learned Counsel in the other writ petition by inviting our attention to the Bye-laws and Rules governing the Federation and went to the extent of even contending that the bye-laws of the Federation will have to prevail even against the provisions in the statutory rules and that the 5th respondent did not cease to be the Chairman in the absence of any acceptance of the resignation by the Board of Directors, as such. The other grounds about the alleged disqualification of the 4th respondent, the alleged political bias and vindictiveness, the illegality said to involve and which is said to vitiate the meeting held on 4.7.1998 have been once over again reiterated with more and greater vehemence virtually demonstrating that this writ petitioner pleading virtually the case of the petitioner in CWP No. 439 of 1998 is more loyal than the king himself.

(13.) Mr. Sanjay Karol, learned Advocate-General and Mr. K.D. Batish, learned Additional Advocate-General appeared on different days and argued the case for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Mittal, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent and Mr. A.K, Vashistha, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent made their submissions in controverting the claims on behalf of the petitioners and strenuously pleaded also that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed even on the ground of failure to avail of the effective alternative remedies provided for in the Act and the Rules. In substance, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondents are that the petitioner in CWP No. 439/98 who is also the 5th respondent in CWP No. 469/98, is himself a graduate in law, former member of the Vidhan Sabha and could not, as an afterthought claim later that without knowing the position of law or under any misapprehension, he submitted his resignation from the office of the Chairman of the Federation and since he subsequently withdrew the same before it was accepted by the Board, he continues to be the Chairman. It is contended that knowingly and voluntarily the petitioner in CWP No. 439/98 submitted his resignation and got it accepted by the Government and his conduct subsequently also proved that he was aware of the fact that he vacated the office and the office was also lying vacant which necessitated the appointment of a Managing Director also and there is no scope for retracing his steps by attempting to manipulate matters in desperateness. It was also contended for the respondents that the provisions in the bye-laws as also the Rules referred to and relied upon for the petitioners are not relevant in the case of the Chairman. that there is no provision specifically in the Act, Rules or Bye-laws prescribing any particular procedure for submitting resignation and acceptance of the same by the Chairman and, therefore, the resignation became operative the moment it has been submitted, even de hors its acceptance by any one and consequently the petitioner in CWP No. 439/98 ceased to be the Chairman at any rate from 28.1.1998 and his subsequent conduct also showed that he accepted such position and acquiesced in the same voluntarily. The respondents further contended that the meeting convened to be held on 4.7.1998 was a requisitioned meeting, that it was validly convened with due notice thereof, that the petitioner in CWP No. 439/98 deliberately avoided the meeting though he was very much present in the next room of the premises when the said meeting was held, that the petitioner in CWP No. 469/98 did not object to the meeting on 4.7.1998 and he was present and participated in the same when the 4th respondent was unanimously elected as the Chairman and, therefore, he is estopped from challenging the same subsequently by means of a writ petition. As for the alleged disqualification suffered by the 4th respondent and his ceasing to be a Director of the Federation. it was contended that such question cannot be raised in this writ petition collaterally and further being disputed question of fact cannot be urged for adjudication and that in any event the 4th respondent did not cease to be a Director on account of the so-called and alleged disqualification and the election of the 4th respondent as Chairman is quite in accordance with law and unassailable.

(14.) We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. We are constrained to observe that these writ petitions are yet another instance of those fighting or could not effectively fight their role in the arena of political field carrying their canker to Courts exhibiting indifference to their responsibilities and seeking entertainment by means of what may be called "litigation for pleasure and for past time" consuming the valuable public time when even serious claims involving life and liberties are waiting in their queue for their turn to get adjudication. Be that as it may. before entering into an adjudication of the claims made, we would consider it appropriate to place on record our displeasure over such conduct of the petitioners and also the manner of litigation embarked upon by them in this Court, so casually and in a sense callously, too. A responsible person like the petitioner in CWP No. 439/98, who has submitted his resignation as the Chairman of the Federation to the then Chief Minister, admittedly belonging to his own political party and inviting the Excellency the Governor of the State to accept the same by passing an order thereon and followed it by the surrender of the staff car and abstaining from the office of Chairman, making a somersault long after such acceptance (1-1/2 months later) by attempting a withdrawal of the same and trying to create confusion in the administration of the Federation and who also could not face the majority of the Board of Directors to vindicate his position and get re-elected, which was permissible to him if he chose to do so, could not be even allowed to venture upon litigations like this. The conduct of the petitioner in CWP No. 469/98. in our view is reprehensible too. At least the other petitioner is fighting his own cause but the petitioner in CWP No. 469/98 seems to make a show of his loyalty to the other by espousing the others cause notwithstanding the fact that the said person is already fighting his own cause also and all these manner of litigation only makes us to be inevitably critical of the very move, to avoid such wasteful litigation in future.

(15.) The first issue that requires to be decided is as to whether the resignation by the petitioner in CWP No. 439 of 1998 of the office of the Chairman of the Federation. was valid, effective and came into effect and if it is so the substantial ground or basis of the claim of the petitioner for relief goes. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon Bye-laws No. 5(iv). (vi). 9, 10 and the Rules to contend that the resignation of the Chairman will become operative and effective only on its acceptance by the Board of Directors as such. Even a cursory perusal of the provisions relied upon would go to show that they have no relevance or application to the office of the Chairman of the Federation and we have not been shown anything either in the Act. or the Rules or Bye-laws, which specifically deals with the case of the resignation of Chairman of the Federation or prescribing any particular procedure for submitting the resignation or its acceptance by any particular authority. It is in such circumstances the stand taken for the respondents gains ground and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Moti Ram v. Param Dev and another, (1993) 2 SCC 725. becomes relevant and assumes significance. In the said decision. the Apex Court held as follows :

"15. Shri Ganguli has urged that the resignation of Shri Karam Singh from the office of Chairman of the Board could be effective only after it was accepted by the Governor of Himachal Pradesh who had nominated him to the said office and till the acceptance of the said resignation. Shri Karam Singh continued to hold the office of the Chairman of the Board. The submission of Shri Ganguli is that acceptance of a resignation is necessary before it can be effective and since in the present case the resignation was accepted only by notification dated February 12. 1990. Shri Karam Singh continued as Chairman of the Board till that date and he was holding that office on the date of scrutiny. i.e. February 5, 1990. In support of this submission. Shri Ganguli has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. . Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156 : 1986 SCC (LandS) 429 : (1986) 1 ATC 103 : (1986) 2 SCR 278 and J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.. (1990) 4 SCC 27 . 1990 SCC (LandS) 570 : (1990) 3 SCR 523. as well as the decision of the Allahabad High Court in LalaRarnv. Gauri Shanker, 1981 All LJ 982. Having carefully considered the said contention of Shri Ganguli we find it difficult to accede to it."

"16. As pointed out by this Court, 'resignation' means the spontaneous relinquishment of one's own right and in relation.to an office, it connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office, it has been held that in the general juristic sense, in order to constitute a complete and operative resignation there must be the intention to give up or relinquish the office and the concomitant act ot"its reiinquishrnent. It has also been observed that the act of relinquishment may take different forms or assume a unilateral or bilateral character, depending on the nature of the office and the conditions governing it. If the act of relinquishment is of unilateral character, it comes into effect when such act indicating the intention to 1 relinquish the office is communicated to the competent authority. The authority to whom the act of the relinquishment is communicated is not required to take any action and the relinquishment takes effect from the date of such communical ton where the resignation is intended to operate in presentt A resignation may also be prospective to be operative from a future date and in that event it would take effect from the date indicated therein and not from the date of communication. In cases where the act of relinquishment is of a bilateral character, the communication of the intention to relinquish, by itself, would not be sufficient to result in relinquishment of the office and some action is required to be taken on such communication of ihe intention to relinquish, e.g.. acceptance of the said request to relinquish the office, and in such a case the relinquishment does not become effective or operative till such action is taken. As to whether the act of relinquishment of an office is unilateral or bilateral in character v/ould depend upon the nature of the office and the conditions governing it."

(16.) The principles laid down in the above decision will apply to the case on hand. In the absence of any specific provisions laying down any particular procedure, the submission of the resignation by the petitioner himself operates as instanttand in this case the petitioner having invited the highest Executive Head of the State to pass orders on his resignation, and factually vacated the office also immediately thereafter cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold and allowed to retrace his steps after nearly one and half a month Jatef. The petitioner in CWP No. 439/98 has no enforceable right this regard, thereafter to be vindicated in this writ petition, in which case there is nothing for the petitioner in CWP No. 469/98 to plead on behalf of the other petitioner. In our view, with the voluntary submission of the resignation by the petitioner in CWP No. 439/98 of the office of Chairman, he ceased to be the Chairman of the Federation and having vacated the office thereby it is not open to him in law to claim any rights in the said office by going back on his earlier.move and conduct and consequently there is no merit whatsoever in this claim of the petitioners. In view of this, the so-called proceedings said to have been taken on 27.3.1998 with six Directors subscribing to the same has no legal basis, sanctity or validity. It seems to be a manipulated proceedings, neither called for nor warranted and Justified and no credibility to be given to such a proceeding. The so-called meeting also cannot be treated as a regular meeting of the Board of Directors, duly held in accordance with law.

(17.) In the light of the above, the further issues that require to be considered are as to whether the meeting held on 4.7.1998 stood vitiated for any of the reasons alleged by the petitioner - either in the convening or holding of the meeting or on the ground of any of the alleged disqualification attributed to the 4th respondent, so as to vitiate his election. In the first instance, the challenge made vis-a-vis the disqualification alleged against the 4th respondent may be considered. It is stated for the petitioners that the 4th respondent who was an elected Director failed to attend three consecutive meetings and. therefore, ceased to be a Director and that, therefore, he could neither participate in the meetings of the Board nor could be elected as the Chairman of the Federation. Rule 41 of the Rules, which provides disqualification generally and sub-rule (2) of Rule 41. which provides for the supervening disqualification in case of a sitting member does not provide for any such disqualification as such. It is only Rule 43(2) which provides that the Managing Committee with the prior approval of the Registrar, may remove any committee member. who fails to attend four consecutive meetings of the Committee without the previous permission of the Chairman obtained by him in writing. Apart from the fact that it requires an adjudication or decision on a disputed question of fact relating to the so-called absence, etc. it is not the case of the petitioners that the Managing Committee or the Board of Directors obtained any such prior approval of the Registrar and any such Resolution removing the 4th respondent has at any time been passed. Hence, this objection on behalf of the petitioners has no merit whatsoever. So far as the allegation of double drawal of T.A. and D.A. by the 4th respondent and the pendency of an FIR in respect of the same, the same, in our view has not. and even if it be true, cannot be said to have fructified into a fact. which could result in the alleged disqualification, on that account. Rule 41(2) stipulates that a member of the Committee of any Society shall cease to hold office as such if he is sentenced for any such offence as is described in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 41. which in turn provides that such stigma would attach if on has been sentenced for any offence other than an offence of a political character or an offence not involving moral delinquency, such sentence not having been reversed or the offence pardoned. It is not even the case of the petitioners that any charge-sheet has at least been filed against the 4th respondent in respect of the FIR said to have been lodged leave alone there been a conviction. Nothing short of a conviction as envisaged under Rule 41(2) read with Rule 41(l)(b) could operate as a disqualification at all. The provisions relating to the allegations of disqualification are themselves very clear and specific and it is not as though the petitioners who are themselves the Directors of the Federation, which is a public body could pretend ignorance of these elementary principles, which they should have been and must be also aware of the position, and yet if they embark upon making such allegations and make irresponsible claims. it is nothing but fighting a litigation without seriousness and unduly taking advantage of their idle time and at times taking undue advantage the undeserved indulgence shown by courts too. The claims on behalf of the petitioners in this regard are. therefore, rejected.

(18.) The above plea is also liable to be rejected for yet another reason. Section 102 of the Act, which is usually known as "Ganga clause" in construction of statutes, a provision akin to which is found engrafted in legislations pertaining to local authorities, and those governing societies including co-operative societies and deliberative bodies, reads as follows :

"Acts of co-operative societies not invalidated fay certain defects. (1) No act of a society or Managing Committee or any officer or liquidator done in good faith in pursuance of the business of the society shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of some defect subsequently discovered in the organisation of the society or in the Constitution of the Managing Committee or in the appointment or election of the officer or liquidator or on the ground that such officer or liquidator was disqualified for his appointment. (2) No act done in good faith by any person appointed under this Act shall be invalid merely by reason of the fact that his appointment has been cancelled by or in consequence of any order subsequently passed under this Act. (3) The Registrar shall decide whether any act was done in good faith in pursuance of the business of a society."

(19.) The principles enshrined in the said provision protect the proceedings and decisions taken in the meeting held on 4.7.1998 and. therefore, the nature of infirmities alleged and the other infirmities said to have occurred in the convening and holding of the meeting held on 4.7.1998. to which a reference will be made hereinafter, do not in any manner affect the legality and validity of the decision or proceedings taken on 4.7.1998 and they stood protected by the curative umbrella of cover of Section 102 of the Act.

(20.) The next ground of challenge made against the holding of the meeting relate to the alleged infirmities in the Constitution of the Board by removing some members and nominating members afresh in their places and that too in excess of the permitted capacity, next in the very convening of the meeting and absence of due notice for the required number of days and the election of the 4th respondent, when there is no vacancy in the office of the Chairman of t

he Federation. It is stated for the petitioners that only to deprive the support of the two earlier nominated members they have been removed and .replaced by new members. The use of the word "removal" is an inappropriate word. When the statute stipulates in Section 35 that the nominees shall hold their office during the pleasure of the State Government or the specified authority, it goes without stating that at any time the authority which nominated the member can withdraw the nominee and make fresh nomination and we see no infirmity in the same. The statutory rules governing the same also postulates such eventuality and permits the same. That apart, the persons, who were so replaced themselves did not challenge the same and submitted to it and while that be the position there is no right in the petitioners to question their withdrawal and the consequent fresh nomination made in their place. So far as the plea regarding nominations made resulting in excess of the permitted number or strength of the Board, it is stated that in terms of Rule 39. the Registrar's power of nomination to represent appropriate interest, shall be, notwithstanding any limits prescribed in the bye-laws. Even that apart, factually in the meeting held the one nominated in excess even according to the petitioners, had not attended and participated in the meeting of the Board on 4.7.1998 and at any rate even if it is said to be an infirmity, the same stood rectified by the issue of the proceedings dated 15.7.1998 withdrawing the General Manager. H.P. State Co-operative Wool Procurement and Marketing Federation. In our view. the same is no infirmity at all since the very General Manager only subsequently was appointed as Managing Director and strictly speaking it did not involve two different incumbents being on the Board, at all. (21.) So far as the convening of the meeting is concerned inasmuch as it is a requisition meeting at the instance of some of the Directors as envisaged under Rule 48 of the Rules and the notice dated 25.6.1998 convening the meeting of the Board on 4.7.1998 has been issued. the alleged irregularity has no meaning whatsoever. So far as the requisition meeting under Rule 48 is concerned, the said rule enables the stipulated number of members joining together requisitioning for the holding of the Special Committee meeting and the notice issued by the Managing Director, is also a mere formality to intimate the other members to be present at the meeting to deal with the subject for which the special meeting has been convened. The reliance upon Bye-law No. 7-1 for the purpose is wholly inappropriate and irrelevant. In view of all these. we see no infirmity whatsoever either in the manner in which or the persons by whom the meeting has been called for or notice issued. This objection on behalf of the petitioners also therefore, fails. (22.) In the meeting, as we could see from the proceedings officially recorded on 4.7.1998, though some general objection relating to the delay in not filling up the vaeancy in the office of Chairman was raised by the petitioner in CWP No. 469/98 and another there was no objection whatsoever of any kind at the meeting to the holding of the election or to the candidature of the 4th respondent and in the absence of any such objection the Resolution appears to have been carried out unanimously. The averments of the petitioner in paragraph 13 of the writ petition also would go to show that the record of proceedings as filed before this Court and the contents thereof were not either disputed to be incorrect or false. Though in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner in CWP No. 469 of 1998, it is claimed vaguely that this petitioner had objected to the election of the 4th respondent on 4.7.1998, it is not even stated as to in what form and what type of objection has been raised. Even at this stage. it is not the claim of the petitioner in CWP No. 469/98 that the minutes recorded of the meeting held on 4.7.1998. is incorrect or false and no exception appears to have been taken by the said writ petitioner to the contents of the minutes of the meeting held on 4.7.1998, so far, in the manner known to law. In view of this the objection taken by the respondents of the role of acquiescence played and on that account becoming ineligible to challenge the election by this writ petition cannot be rejected as of no substance though we do not propose to rest our decision on this technical ground of objection, alone. (23.) The plea of failure to exhaust the other effective alternative remedies available. though in our view has been well taken on the facts and circumstances of the case, since seriously disputed, questions of facts. which cannot be effectively undertaken for enquiry and adjudication in a writ petition arise in these cases. yet since we have heard the writ petitions for considerable time and it involved certain important questions, we do not propose to summarily dismiss them on this ground alone. In any event. for all the reasons recorded by us on the merits of the challenge made in these writ petitions, we see ho justification to countenance the claim of the petitioners. The writ petitions therefore, fail and shall stand rejected. No costs. Petitions dismissed.