the goan I network
PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has struck down the appointment of two “political appointees” on the Board of Directors of the Goa Urban Cooperative Bank done by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and directed the Registrar to hold elections for those two posts within a period of two weeks.
In an order passed on Wednesday, the High Court ruled that the appointment of Sonia Kuncaliencar and Prabha Gawde was “illegal, ultra vires [and] a colourable exercise of power.”
The term of the Board of Directors of the Goa Urban Cooperative Bank had come to an end in December 2016 and elections were held on 9 May 2017 to the eleven member board. Nine directors were elected. Out of nine directors, six were from the general category, one each from the category of Chartered Accountant and the category of person with banking experience, and one from the women category. Two posts remained vacant i.e. one from women category and one reserved, as no nominations were filed.
On 29 May 2017, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Goa, appointed two directors to the Board for the two vacancies -- Sonia Sidharth Kunkolienkar, from women category and Prabha Dulo Gawde from SC/ST category.
Registrar noted in the order that two members are required to be appointed to fill in the vacancies as it is necessary to have a full fledged board. He noted that no application was received for the appointment to any of these vacancies which showed a lack of interest.
However, this decision was challenged by on the elected directors Anil Naik Gaunekar on grounds that it was being done in order to wrest control of the bank through political appointees, besides the fact that the appointed directors were not qualified to be appointed and that the Registrar’s order was issued without the mandatory notice.
The High Court ruled in the petitioner’s favour.
“The methodology adopted by the Registrar is opposed to the principles of transparency and fairness and is against the principles of democratic governance of the co-operatives. The order passed by the Registrar is not a bonafide exercise of power. All the factors taken cumulatively lead to the conclusion that the exercise of power by the Registrar is not for the benefit of the Bank to help it overcome a difficult situation, but it is for the purpose of changing the power dynamics and with the sole object of affecting the democratic functioning,” the HC ruled.
“None of the grounds stated in the impugned order, even prima facie, entitled the Registrar to dispense with the notice. The urgency was artificial and created one, and was designed only with an object to bypass the mandate of the first proviso. As if this is not enough, the two directors who were appointed by the impugned order were disqualified to be appointed
for not having attended the requisite number of meetings,” the court ruled.
“The Registrar thus appointed one woman member, who is disqualified, out of 22715 woman members. She is the wife of the [ex] sitting MLA of Panaji, and one group of directors strongly defends her appointment. Similar is the position for the other appointee directors. The scrutiny and procedure is bypassed with a clear intent to somehow appoint the duo only and none else,” the court ruled.
