Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
where a statute requires to do a certain
thing in a certain way, the thing must be
done in that way or not at all Other
methods of performance are necessarily
forbidden."
9. There cannot be any dispute to
the proposition as laid down by the apex
Court in the above mentioned case,
following the earlier judgment of the
Privi Council and the judgments of the
apex Court as noticed therein. However,
in the present case, although procedure
for recovery has been laid down in 1964
Act and Rules 1971, but according to the
express provisions of Sections 15 and 16
other modes of recovery are not
prohibited. When Sections 15 and 16
itself contemplated that remedy as
provided under sections 15 and 16 are
"....in addition to any other remedy
available to the said Bank..." Thus,
according to Sections 15 and 16 any
other remedy available to the Bank is
also contemplated by statutory provision.
Thus, the provisions of Sections 15 and
16 itself contemplated that recovery can
also be effected by any other manner
available to the Bank and any other mode
of recovery available to the Bank is not
prohibited rather is permitted by
statutory provision. As noticed above,
the respondent no. 1 being a registered
cooperative society within the meaning
of Section 131 of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965, the mode of
recovery under section 95A was clearly
available to the respondent no. 1. Thus,
the principles laid down by the apex
Court in A.R. Antulay's case (supra) is
not attracted and the recovery by mode
as prescribed under section 95-A, is not
prohibited rather is permitted by
provisions of 1964 Act.
10. The second submission which
has been pressed by learned counsel for
the petitioner is that Section 95-A is not
attracted to the respondent no. 1 since it
is neither an agricultural credit society
nor a society referred to under section 34
of 1965 Act. It is true that the respondent
No. 1 is not an agricultural credit society
thus, it has to be looked into as to
whether the respondent no. 1 is covered
by society as contemplated under section
34. Section 34 of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 is as follows:
" Section 34 - Nominee of the
Government on the committee of
management.-(1) Where the State
Government has-
(a) subscribed directly to the share
capital of a co-operative society under
Chapter VI: or
(b) assisted indirectly in the
formation or augmentation of the share
capital of a co-operative society as
provided in Chapter VI; or
(c) given loans or made advances to
a co-operative society or guaranteed the
repayment of principal and payment of
interest on debentures issued by a cooperative
society or guaranteed the
repayment of principal and payment of
interest on loans or advances to a cooperative
society.
the State Government shall have the
right to nominate on the Committee of
Management of such society not more
than two persons one of whom shall be a
Government servant, so, however, that
the Government servant shall not vote at
an election of an office-bearer of the
society.