S.N. Jha, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Minister In-charge, Co-operation dated July 21, 1994, as contained in Annexure-3, directing termination of the membership of 88 members of Bhawanipur Fishermens Co-operative Society Ltd., and the report of the District Co-operative Officer dated September 22, 1994, as contained in Annexure-4, recommending termination of the membership of the aforementioned persons. By amendment the Petitioners have also challenged the show cause notices issued by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur dated October 5, 1994 and the order of termination ultimately passed by him on October 26, 1994, as contained in Annexures 11 and 14 to the writ petition.

2. The dispute, as indicated above, relates to the membership of 88 members of Bhawanipur Fishermens Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Society). The facts giving rise to the dispute are as follows:

On March 16, 1993 the election of the members and office-bearers of the Managing Committee of the Society was held. Petitioner No. 2 and Ors. were elected as members/office-bearers. On January 31, 1994 the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Muzaffarpur passed an order of supersession of the Managing Committee. Petitioner No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Chief Minister (Incharge Co-operation) under Section 41(6) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, (in short, the). The Chief Minister took the view that the real dispute relates to the membership of the aforementioned 88 persons on account of their place of residence being outside the area of operation of the society and, therefore, the Additional Registrar should have first resolved that dispute rather than passed an order of supersession. He, accordingly, by order dated July 21, 1994 directed the Additional Registrar to first decide the question of membership and proceed in the matter accordingly. The order of supersession was set aside. Thereafter, the District Co-operative Officer after giving opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned submitted the aforementioned report dated September 22, 1994 recommending termination of their membership. The Additional Registrar thought it proper to give notice at his own level. He, accordingly, issued notices to the concerned members on October 5, 1994 and finally passed the order of termination of their membership on October 26, 1994.

3. During course of hearing it transpired that on October 27, 1994 the consequential order of supersession of the Managing Committee under Section 41(5)(b) of thewas also passed on the ground that more than half of the total number of seats of the Managing Committee had fallen vacant (by reason of termination of membership of the concerned members/office bearers). Counsel for the Petitioners initially prayed for time so that he may amend the writ petition and challenge the said order. Counsel, however, agreed that the crux of the dispute relates to the validity of the order of termination of members dated October 26, 1994. If that order is set aside, the consequential order of, supersession would naturally become non-est. Conversely, if the former order is upheld, the latter order, which is merely a consequential order, by necessary implication, would also stand upheld.

4. A registered co-operative society functions within the area of operation as mentioned in its bye-laws. One of the conditions of the registration of a co-operative society under Section 8 of theis that the members must be resident of the same town or village or the same group of villages. The bye-laws provide for cessation of membership if the member removes his place of residence from the area of operation. It is not In dispute that when the society in question was established in 1961 the area of operation was the entire Sikta Thana/Police Station. It is also not in dispute that in course of time Sikta Thana was bifurcated and that places of residence of the aforementioned 88 persons lie outside the limits of the new truncated Sikta Thana. According to the Petitioners, however, unless a corresponding amendment in the bye-laws is brought about, reducing the area of operation of the Society, there cannot be automatic cessation of the membership on that ground. According to the counsel what is important is not the present area of the Thana but the area of the operation as described in the bye-laws. It was submitted that the residence of the members is to be seen at the time of registration of the society and not thereafter. Counsel referred to the provisions of Rules 8 to 10 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959 and submitted that the membership can be terminated only if a member incurs any of the disqualifications specified in Rule 8 and not otherwise. According to the counsel, this can be done by the Managing Committee alone. In this connection, reference was also made to Clause 9 of the Bye-laws.

5. Mr. Kamlapati Singh who appeared for the Intervenors submitted that as would appear from the bye-laws of the Society, the area of operation is Sikta Thana and, therefore, whatever be the geographical extent of the said Thana will also be extent of the area of operation of the Society. He stated that an application bearing Misc. Case No. 234 of 1994 has been filed before the Registrar in respect of the same dispute which is pending. Counsel stated that except Petitioner No. 2 Mahanand Sahani and applicant of Misc. Case No. 234/94 none of the remaining 86 persons has grievance against the termination of their membership. Counsel submitted that place of residence of six of the members of the Managing Committee falling outside the area of operation, the Managing Committee has rightly been superseded under Section 41(5)(b) of the.

6. Clause 9 of the Bye-laws provides for suspension and expulsion of a member in conditions as mentioned therein. As against this, Clause 10 provides for cessation of membership. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 10 provides that if a member removes his place of residence from the area of operation, ordinarily, he shall cease to be a member unless and until he is permitted by the Committee to retain his membership. Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that it is not a case of removal of place of residence. In that sense, counsel may be right. No doubt, the situation envisaged in Clause 10 is somewhat different, where the area of operation remains the same but person shifts his place of residence beyond the said area, undoubtedly, he will be said to have removed his place of residence. In my opinion, the position will be the same where instead of the person shifting his place of residence the area of operation of the society itself is reduced or gets truncated. In the former situation, he physically removes the place of residence by shifting to Anr. place; in the latter, his place of residence notionally gets shifted inasmuch as after the reduction of the area of operation it lies beyond the said area. If by voluntarily shifting the place of residence the person ceases to be the member, it cannot be said that he will not cease to be a member although his place of residence lies outside the area of operation. The moot question, therefore, is whether without formal amendment of the bye-laws as against the area of operation as mentioned therein, the area of operation can be changed or reduced.

7. As noticed above, the area of operation has been mentioned as Sikta Thana i.e. Sikta Police Station. In other words, when the society was established, its area of operation extended to the entire geographical limits of Sikta Thana as it then stood. It was possible to describe the area of operation by mentioning the Panchayats or the villages comprising Sikta Thana. Had that been the position, the contention that without effecting corresponding amendment in the bye-laws excluding certain Panchayats or villages from the area of operation the area could not be reduced, could be accepted. But where the area of operation is described not panchayat-wise or village-wise but Thana-wise and the area of Thana is reduced, it cannot be said that although area of the Thana has been reduced, the area of operation of the society would remain the same, as before. With the change (reduction) in the area of Thana, the area of operation of the society is automatically reduced. In that sense, the area of operation of, the society and the area of Sikta Thana would be deemed to be co-terminus. Any other interpretation would be violative of the provisions of Section 8 of the. It is true that Section 8 lays down the condition of membership at the time of registration; nevertheless, the provisions as contained therein are enough indication of legislative intent. If the legislative intent is to confine the membership to such persons who reside in the town or village or group of villages (which may be known as Thana), whatever be the unit, it cannot be said that although after change in the area of town, village or Thana the person does not reside in the same town or village or Thana, he will still continue to be member of the Society. In my opinion, the situation is covered by the third Paragraph of Clause 10 of the Bye-laws of the Society, by necessary implication. That too will be a case of automatic cessation of membership. That being the position, I have no hesitation in rejecting contentions urged on behalf of the Petitioners.

8. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

S.J. Mukhopadhyaya, J.

9. I agree.