Functus officio and material suppression in writ relief: tenure expiry did not defeat meeting directions, and nondisclosure barred relief.

The tenure-expiry of a co-operative society's Board did not automatically render it functus officio where the statutory scheme preserved the Registrar's power, and in special cases the State Government's power, to direct or authorise a delayed general meeting; accordingly, the direction to hold the delegate election and annual general meeting was not without jurisdiction merely because the three-year term had ended. Separately, the writ petitioner's failure to disclose a prior proceeding was treated as material suppression, and that nondisclosure disentitled the petitioner to discretionary writ relief. The writ judgment was therefore set aside and the writ petition failed on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Board of Directors of a co-operative society became functus officio on expiry of the three-year term so that the impugned direction for holding the delegate election and annual general meeting was without jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected for suppression of material facts.

Issue (i): Whether the Board of Directors of a co-operative society became functus officio on expiry of the three-year term so that the impugned direction for holding the delegate election and annual general meeting was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The provisions governing annual general meetings, election of directors, tenure of directors, and the Registrar's powers to call meetings were read as a scheme. The Court held that the time-limit in the provision fixing the directors' tenure did not, by itself, extinguish the Board's authority. It reasoned that the statutory power of the Registrar and, in special circumstances, the State Government to direct or permit a delayed meeting would be rendered meaningless if the Board were treated as automatically functus officio on expiry of three years. The Court also applied the principle that statutory provisions must be construed so that none becomes otiose, and distinguished authorities dealing with other enactments as not in pari materia. Accordingly, the impugned direction was not without jurisdiction merely because the original tenure had expired.

Conclusion: The Board did not become functus officio on expiry of the three-year period, and the challenge to the impugned direction on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected for suppression of material facts.

Analysis: The writ petitioner had not disclosed a prior proceeding under the co-operative societies statute. The Court treated that omission as a material suppression, holding that a litigant invoking writ jurisdiction must disclose all facts that may bear on the exercise of discretionary relief. Since the omission went to the maintainability of the writ claim and the petitioner had affirmed the supporting affidavit, the Court declined to grant relief.

Conclusion: The writ petition was liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the writ judgment was set aside, and the writ petition failed on both the merits of jurisdiction and the equitable ground of nondisclosure.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute preserves the Registrar's power to require or authorise a delayed general meeting, the directors' tenure-expiry does not automatically render the Board functus officio; separately, suppression of a material fact disentitles the writ petitioner to discretionary relief.

---