Chhatisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - ss.49-E(2), 56(3) – Appellant, a State Cooperative body is the apex body of Cooperative Banks in the State of Chhatisgarh – First respondent is a District Central Cooperative Bank – Appointment of the CEO of the first respondent – Division Bench of High Court held that in terms of s.54(3), appellant had no role in the appointment of the CEO and the power to appoint a CEO could only be exercised by the Registrar upon the failure of the District Central Cooperative Bank to make an appointment within a specified time period – Held: Sub-section (1) of s.49E deals with appointment of CEO of an Apex Society while sub-section (2) with CEO of Central Society – s.54 talks about the cadre of officers – Sub-section (3) of s.54 makes it obligatory upon such class of societies to accept and appoint cadre officers on cadre posts as and when they are deputed by the Apex or Central Societies – Provisions of s.54(3) was amended by Amendment Act 2016 – Present dispute arose by virtue of the 2016 Amending Act which inserted clauses (a) and (b) in s.54(3) of the 1960 Act – Clause (a) of sub-section (3) stipulated that the eligibility criteria for the post of CEO of a Cooperative Bank are those prescribed by the RBI in this regard and clause (b) stipulated that if the concerned Cooperative Bank failed to appoint a CEO under the eligibility criteria within a specified period, the Registrar may appoint an eligible officer of the Bank – The term ‘class of societies’ in s.54(3) excluded Cooperative Banks for the limited purpose of the appointment of their CEO – However, where a Cooperative Bank is a Central Society within the ambit of s.49-E(2), the CEO shall be appointed from among the officers of the cadre constituted and maintained under s.54, where such cadre has been constituted –State Government is empowered to issue a notification in pursuance of the power conferred upon it under s.54(3) specifying that such Cooperative Bank shall appoint its CEO from the cadre maintained by the Apex Society as notified therein – The notified Apex Society shall forward to the concerned Cooperative Bank a panel of officers, from which the Cooperative Bank shall appoint its CEO, subject to such officer possessing the eligibility criteria as stipulated by the RBI; and where no cadre has been constituted under s.54, the CEO of a Cooperative Bank which is a Central Society under s.49-E(2) shall be appointed with the prior approval of the Registrar as stipulated in s.49-E(2)(b)(ii) – In the instant case, first respondent is a Central Society falling within the ambit of s.49-E(2) of the 1960 Act – In exercise of the power conferred by s.54(3) of the 1960 Act, the State Government issued a notification dated 12 January 1971 specifying that Central Cooperative Banks were obligated to employ officers, according to their availability, only from the cadres created by the State Cooperative Bank – Seventh respondent is not an officer from the cadre maintained by the appellant – Consequently, the action of the first respondent in seeking to appoint the seventh respondent as the CEO was not sustainable in law – Appointment of sixth respondent by the appellant as the CEO of first respondent was ratified by the Registrar of Societies and accepted by the BoD of the first respondent – Thus, appointment of sixth respondent was in terms of s.54(3) and was legally sustainable – Order of Division Bench of High Court set aside.

Interpretation of Statutes: Harmonious construction – Held: In interpreting two provisions of a statute, courts must adopt the interpretation which does not defeat either provision and advances the remedy envisaged by their enactment – It is settled principle of law that where two provisions of an enactment appear to conflict, courts must adopt an interpretation which harmonises, to the best extent possible, both provisions – Where two provisions of an enactment appear to be in conflict, courts do not readily presume an ‘either/or’ situation – Courts must construe the provisions harmoniously to ensure, as far as possible, the effective operation of both provisions in a manner that furthers the purpose of the enactment – Every provision, phrase, clause and word must be interpreted in a manner to further the object of the enactment – No word or part of a statute should be construed in isolation – Chhatisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.