Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RAMCHANDRA GANPAT SHINDE
versus
State of Maharashtra
Decide on August 17, 1993
Constitution of India – Article 19, 32, 226 and 136 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 151 – Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971 – Rule 4 and 6 – Competent authority under Act to initiate election process in accordance with Act and Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971 – Collector accordingly initiated process pursuant to which society submitted to Collector list of voters Collector issued following programme to finalise list of voters was fixed as date to display on notice board of provisional voters list inviting claims or objections or suggestions for inclusion or omission from provisional list last date to present such claims or objections to Collector in terms – Held, High Court or elections conducted pursuant to permission granted by this acceding to it would amount to putting a premium on fraud collusion or abuse of the process of Court creating disbelief and disillusionment of efficacy of judicial process and rule of law and a feeling would be generated that persons capable to manoeuvre and abuse judicial process would reap benefit thereof and get away with orders – Every endeavour would be made to inculcate respect for fair judicial process and faith of people in efficacy of law respondent is not contesting its case, costs would not be awarded – But an exception would be carved out and in a suitable case cost should be awarded on persons that set law in motion; had benefit thereof and remained obviously ex parte – Court plenary power "to pass such orders as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter coming before it – Case already established that respondents be lurking and loitering in corridors of this Court for outcome though obviously remained ex parte case for exercising our power impose cost on non-contesting respondents – Order accordingly.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
Jurisdiction and Powers of the Court: The Court exercises its plenary power under Article 226 to ensure justice, including the authority to modify or set aside orders obtained through collusion, fraud, or abuse of process, even if those orders are otherwise legally valid. The Court emphasizes the importance of maintaining respect for the judicial process and the rule of law (!) (!) .
Election Law and Procedure: The case concerns the conduct of elections under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the rules governing election procedures, including the preparation and finalization of voters' lists. The election process must adhere strictly to statutory provisions, particularly regarding the preparation of provisional and final voters' lists and the timing of these lists relative to the election schedule (!) (!) (!) .
Validity of Voters' Lists: The final voters' list published before any postponement or judicial intervention is considered the valid list for conducting elections. Any subsequent alteration or manipulation, especially through collusive or fraudulent means, invalidates the election process based on such lists (!) (!) .
Manipulation and Collusion: Allegations of collusion between certain individuals (e.g., the society's ex-chairman and others) to manipulate the voters' list and obtain favorable orders from the court are significant. Such actions undermine the legitimacy of the election process and warrant judicial scrutiny and correction (!) (!) .
Abuse of Judicial Process: The Court highlights that obtaining orders through collusion or fraud constitutes abuse of the judicial process. Orders obtained in such circumstances are liable to be interfered with, especially if they circumvent statutory mandates (!) (!) .
Role of Judicial Orders and Directions: Orders passed by courts, especially those obtained by consent or through collusion, must be scrutinized for legality and adherence to statutory rules. Orders that are found to be collusive or fraudulent can be set aside or modified to uphold the rule of law (!) (!) .
Consequences of Collusion and Fraud: When collusion is established, the election process based on manipulated voters' lists or court orders obtained through fraudulent means is declared illegal and invalid. The Court directs that elections be conducted strictly in accordance with the original, legally valid voters' list (!) .
Costs and Penalties: The Court exercises its authority to impose costs on respondents who engaged in misconduct, such as playing fraud or collusion, especially when they remained ex parte or did not contest the proceedings. The costs are quantified and can be recovered from the responsible parties (!) .
Order and Directions: The Court declares the election conducted by the concerned authorities as illegal. It upholds the validity of the voters' list published prior to any judicial or administrative interference and directs the authorities to conduct elections strictly as per the statutory rules, ensuring compliance with the original valid voters' list (!) .
Public Confidence and Judicial Integrity: The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judicial system and the electoral process. It underscores the Court's responsibility to act decisively against any misconduct that threatens the integrity of elections and the rule of law (!) (!) .
If you require further elaboration or specific legal advice based on this document, please let me know.
Judgment
K. RAMASWAMY, J.
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) IMPORTANT twin questions of law, namely, whether the Court while exercising its power under Art. 226, could give direction contrary to the statutory mandate, if so whether such an order is liable to judicial review by an independent proceeding under Art. 226 and if so under what circumstances and to what extent, arise for decision in this appeal. Shri Vithal Sakhar Sehakari Karkhana Ltd. , Venu Nagar, Gurusale in Solapur Dist. , the 4th respondent, for short "the Society" is a specified Co-operative Society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Act 21 of 1961) for short the Act. Its term of office is 5 years. It was due to expire by 3/12/1991. The Dist. Collector, 2nd respondent is the competent authority under the Act to initiate election process in accordance with the Act and the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971 for short the Rules. The Dist. Collector accordingly initiated the process pursuant to which the society submitted to the Collector on 18/10/1991 the list of voters as on 30/06/1991. Thereon the Collector issued the following programme to finalise the list of voters. 12/11/1991 was fixed as the date to display on the notice board of the provisional voters list inviting claims or objections or suggestions for the inclusion or omission from the provisional list. 20/11/1991 was the last date to present such claims or objections to the Collector in terms of Rule 6 (2) of the Rules. Tile Collector had to take a decision therein under Rule 6 (4) on 7/12/1991 and the final list of the voters should be published under Rule 7/12/1991. In terms of the programme the provisional list was published on 12/11/1991 and after consideration of the objection or claims the final list was published on 17/12/1991.
( 3 ) THE Government in exercise of its power under S. 77-IB of the Act postponed the conduct of election to the committees of all Co-operative Societies except those covered by orders of the Courts till 30/09/1992. Two members by name Narayan Ganpat More and Mahadeo Bhanudas Mule, filed Writ Petition No. 2970 of 1992 in Bombay High Court on 13/07/1992 for a. mandamus to the Dist. Collector and election officer to conduct election to the Committee of the Society forthwith that is to say after the expiry of 30-9-1992 in accordance with S. 73g and Chapter XI-A of the Act and the Rules and to complete the same within the minimum period as provided under the Act. By consent of the society, through its Chairman A. M. Patil, the 5th respondent herein, the Division Bench passed minutes order that since the Govt. postponed the election up to 30/09/1992, the process of election to the Society shall commence from 1/10/1992 and the Collector shall accordingly take suitable steps for holding the election. Following its heels More and Mule again filed another Writ Petition No. 4107 of 199 2/09/1992, for a direction to hold election on the basis of final voters list published on 17/12/1991. Again A. K. Patil, Chairman took notice put forth consent minutes and the Division Bench accepted it and directed by order dated 28/09/1992 that "respondent No. 4 (Society) shall submit provisional list of voters as on 30/06/1992 as per Rule 4 of the Rules on or before 10/10/1992. The Collector thereupon shall complete the finalisation of the said list under Rule 6 and then shall pronounce election programme under Rule 116 for holding the elections of the Committee of the Society and to complete the same within the prescribed time under the Rules. " Thereafter on 6/10/1992 the election officer asked the Society to submit fresh provisional list as on 30/06/1992. On becoming aware of the above order, on 16/10/1992, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 4400 of 1992 to modify the order dated 28/09/1992 made in Writ Petition No. 4107 of 1992 and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 the State Govt. (Dist. Collector and Election Officer) to hold elec
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
