Court Upholds Cooperative Society's Amended Bye-Laws, Rejects Writ Petition

Background

The case involves a dispute over the amendment of the bye-laws of the Deesa Taluka Cooperative Produce and Sales Union Limited (the "Union"), a cooperative society registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The petitioners, who were members of the Union, challenged the order of the District Registrar approving the amendments to the bye-laws.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the Administrator Committee, appointed by the District Registrar to manage the affairs of the Union, had no authority to initiate the proposal for amending the bye-laws. They contended that the power to amend the bye-laws lies with the duly elected Managing Committee, not the Administrator Committee. The petitioners also argued that the amendments made by the Administrator Committee were against the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that the decision taken by the Administrator Committee was ultimately approved by the general body of the Union, which is the supreme authority under the Act. They contended that the Registrar's order approving the amendments was in accordance with the law and that the petitioners should have challenged the resolution of the general body instead of the Registrar's order.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The court noted that the petitioners had initially challenged the appointment of the Administrator Committee but later restricted their challenge to the Registrar's order approving the amendments to the bye-laws. The court observed that the petitioners had not pressed for any interim relief during the pendency of the writ petition, which would have prevented the Registrar from taking a decision.

The court further held that the petitioners had an alternative remedy available under the Act, namely, the right to appeal against the Registrar's order under Section 153. The court emphasized that when there is an inbuilt mechanism provided in the Act for challenging the Registrar's decision, it would not be permissible for the petitioners to bypass this remedy and directly approach the court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court also rejected the petitioners' argument that the Registrar had acted in an arbitrary manner, stating that the Registrar had the authority to approve the amendments to the bye-laws, and the petitioners had lost the opportunity to challenge the resolution of the general body.

Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners should have availed the alternative remedy of appeal under the Act instead of directly approaching the court. The court clarified that the petitioners and the respondents were free to raise all the contentions permissible under the law before the appropriate authority.