Back
2012 Supreme(SC) 2710
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhop Padhaya, JJ.
Chandrakant Lumchand Gogad - Appellant
Versus
Nashik District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others - Respondents
C.A. No. 8378 of 2011 with C.A. No. 8379 of 2011.
Decided On : 15.2.2012.
For the Appellants :- U.U. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, Neela Gokhale, Gaurav Agrawal, Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, AOR.
For the Respondents:- V.A. Bobde, Sr. Adv., Appasaheb S. Desai, Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai, Somanatha Padhan, Vipul Ganda and Kamna Sagar, Advocates.
Headnote:
Provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act – Whether the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nashik could have, within three days of his having declared that the amendments made by respondent -Nashik District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. in the Model Bye-Laws are contrary to the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, and the Model Bye-Laws accorded approval to the amended Bye-Law increasing the tenure of the Chairman/Vice-Chairman from one year to two-and-a-half years and that too without giving any indication of the application of mind to the representation/explanation allegedly submitted by respondent and without taking into consideration the policy contained in letter issued by the Cooperative Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals filed against judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court –Held, Although, the Division Bench of the High Court has taken cognizance of the notings which are said to have been recorded in the file of the Divisional Joint Registrar who issued communication, this Court has been deprived of that opportunity because the counsel representing the State and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies has thought it proper not to appear and produce the relevant records – Be that as it may, on a careful reading of order and communication, court are convinced that the learned Single Judge had rightly quashed the communication and directed the Divisional Joint Registrar to decide the matter afresh after considering the rival contentions – Court are approving the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we do not consider it necessary and proper to go into the legality or otherwise of the amendments made vide Resolution in the Model Bye-Laws but make it clear that the Divisional Joint Registrar shall pass appropriate order keeping in view the relevant records, the policy contained in letter and indicate reasons, howsoever briefly, for approving or not approving the resolution – Appeals are allowed.
What is the question whether the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nashik could approve amendments to the Model Bye-Laws increasing the tenure of the Chairman/Vice-Chairman from one year to two-and-a-half years within three days of declaring them contrary to the Act?
What is the standard of reasoning required by the Divisional Joint Registrar when approving or rejecting amendments to Bye-Laws, and whether reasons must be recorded?
What is the effect of the High Court's decision and the Supreme Court's order regarding remand, approval, and the tenure of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman in light of compliance with the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and Model Bye-Laws?
ORDER :
1. Whether the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nashik could have, within three days of his having declared that the amendments made by respondent no. 1-Nashik District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. in the Model Bye-Laws are contrary to the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, (for short, 'the Act') and the Model Bye-Laws accorded approval to the amended Bye-Law No. increasing the tenure of the Chairman/Vice-Chairman from one year to two-and-a-half years and that too without giving any indication of the application of mind to the representation/explanation dated.10.2010 allegedly submitted by respondent no. and without taking into consideration the policy contained in letter dated .12.2008 issued by the Cooperative Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals filed against judgment dated.8.2011 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
2. In furtherance of an agreement entered into by the Government of Maharashtra with National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) and the Central Government for implementation of the recommendations of Vaidayanathan Committee certain amendments were carried out in the Act. Simultaneously, Model Bye-Laws were framed and circulated to the cooperative societies in the State including the respondent no. vide letter dated 12.12.2008. In that letter it was made clear that while implementing the Model Bye-Laws, the banks are entitled to carry out necessary changes in the provisions relating to formation of the Managing Committee and other provisions as per local circumstances without impinging upon any statutory provision.
3. On receipt of letter dated.12.2008, respondent no. 1 passed Resolution No. dated.8.2009 for adoption of the Model Bye-Laws with certain amendments. That resolution was forwarded to the Divisional Joint Registrar vide letter dated.10.2009, who after scrutinising resolution and the amendments made in the Model Bye-Laws passed order dated 23.11.2009 under Section(3) of the Act, the operative portions of which read thus:
::ORDER::-
I, B.S. Yampalle, Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under section(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the amendments proposed by the bank the Nashik District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Nashik from the Introduction Sub-Rule No. in Model Byelaw submitted vide Read No. to the general Sub-Rule No. and the appendix to be handed over under Sub-Rule No. to the Chief Executive Officer being inconsistent with the provisions in the Co-operative Act, Rule and Model Byelaws the Model Sub-Rule proposed to be adopted by the bank is being rejected for the reasons mentioned above."
4. After about one month and six days the Managing Committee of respondent no. passed Resolution dated 29.12.2009 for adoption of the Model Bye-Laws with the rider that the matter be placed in the General Meeting. After another seven months and a half, notice dated 17.7.2010 was issued for convening a Special General Meeting of respondent no. without giving any indication of the agenda. However, during the meeting some members are said to have suggested that the tenure of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman should be increased to two-and-a-half years instead of one year as specified in the Model Bye-Laws. Some other amendments were suggested in Clauses, 33,(a) and(5) of the Model Bye-Laws. It is said that majority of those present in the meeting passed resolution to amend the Model Bye-Laws. The relevant portion of Resolution dated.7.2010 is extracted below:
"In Byelaw No., the duration of elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman is one year. However, same shall be for months (i.e. 1/2 year) and the said provision shall be applicable to present Chairman and Vice-Chairman. This amendment to be carried out."
5. The aforesaid resolution was forwarded to the Divi
