SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(SC) 361

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BABAJI KONDAJI GARAD
Versus
NASIK MERCHANTS CO OPERATIVE BANK Limited,nasik
Decided on : October 31, 1983

Headnote:

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 73-B - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Elections Mater - Petitioner, a member of first respondent-Bank and belonging to Joshi community which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe moved an election petition under S. 144-T before Additional Commissioner, Nasik, calling in question the election of respondents 3 to 16 to Board of Directors of the first respondent-Bank inter alia on the ground that whole of election programme is vitiated on account of its non-compliance with mandatory statutory provision enacted in S. 73-B which prescribes reservation of seats; one in favour of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and another in favour of weaker section from members who had borrowed loans not exceeding Rs. 200. 00 in year preceding the year of election - There were other grounds on which election of respondents 3 to 16 was called in question but they are no more relevant and needn’t clutter the record here – Held, Court held that In case of reserved seats a further declaration has to be made in the nomination form that the candidate belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or weaker section candidate - And this declaration has to be signed by candidate himself. Now therefore, Collector, a statutory authority charged with a duty to hold election according to Act, must specify in election programme inter alia that there are reserved seats to be filled in by election and class in whose favour reservation is made - This will be notice to the members eligible for contesting election to reserved seats so that they may fill in their nomination - There is not even a whisper in election programme whether any of the seats were reserved - Omission is glaring and fatal - As pointed out earlier, election has to be held to form committee. Section 73 requires the Collector to hold election in accordance with the Act including Section 73-B - Failure to hold election in accordance with Act including Section 73-B would vitiate whole election programme from commencement till the end - It would all the more be so because failure to hold election according to provisions of Act which denies an opportunity to the persons who are eligible to get elected to reserved seats would certainly vitiate whole election programme - One can safely conclude that election is held in violation of Section 73-B, in our opinion, High Court was in error in upholding the election, which is ex facie illegal, invalid and contrary to law - Appeals allowed.

Judgment

D. A. DESAI

( 1 ) CONSTRUCTION of Section 73-B of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (act for short) figures in these two appeals arising from the two decisions rendered by the Bombay High Court, covering the same point and reaching the same conclusion, but the latter one does not take note of the earlier decision.

RE : S. L. P. (Civil) No. 7732/83 :

THE Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. , the first respondent, is a co-operative Bank deemed to be registered under the Act and is governed by the Act. It was registered on 11/06/1959. It is a specified society within the meaning of the expression in Section. 73-G (1) (vii) of the Act. Accordingly the election of the members of the Committee and the election of the office-bearers by the Committee of the first respondent would be subject to the provisions of Chapter XI-A and has to be conducted in the manner prescribed in the chapter. The Committee in which management of the first respondent vests, is designated as Board of Directors. The term of the members of the Board of Directors is five years. The election to the Board of Directors for the period 1981-82 to 1985-86 became due. As required by S. 144-C, the Collector having jurisdiction in the matter notified the programme of election on 29/10/1981. At the relevant time, the strength of the Board of Directors was 15 in number. 14 Directors were to be elected by members and one was to be nominated by the Central Co-operative Bank. It is not disputed but in fact conceded that the election programme notified by the Collector did not specify that the two seats on the Board of Directors of the first respondent would be reserved seats; one for the members belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and one for the weaker section of the members who have been granted loans from the society of an amount not exceeding Rs. 200. 00 during the year immediately preceding as required by Sec. 73-B of the Act. Poll was held on 12/12/1981 and the counting of votes took place on Dec. 14, 1981 and the result was declared on Dec. 17, 1981. Respondents 3 to 16 were declared elected. Thereupon the present petitioner, a member of the first respondent-Bank and belonging to the Joshi community which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe moved an election petition under S. 144-T before the Additional Commissioner, Nasik, calling in question the election of respondents 3 to 16 to the Board of Directors of the first respondent-Bank inter alia on the ground that the whole of the election programme is vitiated on account of its non-compliance with the mandatory statutory provision enacted in S. 73-B which prescribes reservation of seats; one in favour of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and another in favour of weaker section from the members who had borrowed loans not exceeding Rs. 200. 00 in the year preceding the year of election (reservation for weaker section for short ). There were other grounds on which the election of respondents 3 to 16 was called in question but they are no more relevant and neednot clutter the record here. The Additional Commissioner as per his judgment and order dated 8/02/1982 held that despite the failure of the first respondent-Bank to amend bye law 41 (correct bye-law appears to be 40) even after repeated reminders by the District Deputy Registrar, the mandate of S. 73-B will have precedence over the unamended bye-law 40 and as the election process was set in motion in contravention of the mandatory provision contained in Section 73-B and the relevant rules, the result of the election has been materially affected and accordingly declared the election of respondents Nos. 3 to 16 as void and ineffective and directed the Collector, Nasik to hold the election de novo.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS Nos. 3 to 7 and 9, 10 and 12 and 14 to 16 filed Writ Petition No. 392 of 1982 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Art. 227 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari. A Division Bench of the Bombay Hi























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top