Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.
Ms. Roopa M, D/O Sri Mariyappa - Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9744 of 2023 (CS-RES)
Decided On : 20-02-2024
Election Dispute - Membership Disqualification - Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Section 70 - Sections 16, 17, 20 - The court discussed the eligibility of a candidate to contest in an election, the disqualification of membership in a Co-operative Society, and the right to vote. The court interpreted the provisions of the Act of 1959 and their application to the dispute, emphasizing the automatic cessation of membership upon incurring disqualification and the lack of provision for membership revival.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's election as a Director of the 3rd respondent Union was challenged by the 5th respondent, questioning the petitioner's membership and eligibility to contest the election. The dispute arose under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner ceased to be a member of the primary Society upon becoming a paid employee, and membership did not automatically revive after resignation. The court held that the petitioner was not eligible to contest the election or be nominated as a director of the 4th respondent Society.
Issues: The issues included the eligibility of the petitioner to contest the election, the interpretation of membership disqualification under the Act of 1959, and the locus of the 5th respondent to question the petitioner's membership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the automatic cessation of membership upon incurring disqualification and the lack of provision for membership revival were key legal principles. The court also emphasized the right to vote and the eligibility criteria for contesting in an election.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the decision of the Appellate Tribunal to set aside the petitioner's election to the board of the 3rd respondent Union.
ORDER :
1. The election of the petitioner as a Director of the 3rd respondent Union is questioned by the 5th respondent who is one of the contestants in the said election. The petitioner was declared as a returned candidate in the said election.
2. In a dispute raised under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959'), the 5th respondent urged that the petitioner was not a member of the 4th respondent Society which she claimed to have represented when she contested the election. The Authority under Section 70 of the Act of 1959 rejected the plea of the 5th respondent. In an appeal filed by the 5th respondent, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has set aside the petitioner's election as a Director of the 3rd respondent Union. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The petition is filed primarily on three grounds.
b. No provision in the Act of 1959 enables the contestant in an election to the Board of a Federal Society, to raise an election dispute questioning the eligibility of the candidate in the election to the Board of Federal Society, on the ground that the contestant is not a member of the primary Society which he claims to represent.
c. The primary Society which is a member of the 3rd respondent Union has not incurred any disqualification to represent and contest in the election to the Board of the 3rd respondent Union. Individual disqualification, if any of a contestant is not a ground to raise an election dispute.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner was a paid employee of the 4th respondent society from 2015 to 2019. The petitioner resigned from her employment in 2019. It is claimed that her membership in the primary Society which she had acquired before being employed under the 4th respondent Society, would revive and she is eligible to represent the primary Society. The 4th respondent primary Society nominated the petitioner as a nominee to represent it before the 3rd respondent Union in the election to the Board of a 3rd respondent Union.
5. In a dispute raised under Section 70 of the Act of 1959, the Authority concluded that the 5th respondent cannot question the eligibility of the petitioner when the 5th respondent did not object to the nomination filed by the petitioner. The Authority also held that the petitioner was a member of the Society since 2006 and the Society has passed a resolution to nominate the petitioner and said nomination is valid.
6. The Tribunal in the appeal filed by the 5th respondent took a view that the petitioner resigned from her post as the Secretary on 18.03.2019 and even after the resignation, the petitioner signed the cheques on behalf of the Society even in the month of March to May 2019. The Tribunal held that the elections are held within 12 months from the date of resignation by the petitioner as such, the petitioner was not eligible to vote in view of Section 20(2)(a-iii) of the Act of 1959 as she had incurred disqualification. Hence the election was set aside.
7. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.D.R.Ravishakar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the 4th respondent primary Society, supporting the petitioner urged that the dispute under Section 70 of the Act of 1959 by the 5th respondent questioning the eligibility of the petitioner to represent the 4th respondent primary Society is not tenable. It is also urged that the 3rd respondent primary Co-operative Society has not incurred any disqualification under Section 20(2) of the Act of 1959. The Society has the power to nominate its member to represent the primary Society in the 3rd respondent Union and if at all there is any dispute relating to the membership of the petitioner in the 4th respondent primary Society, said dispute can be raised only by the members of the 4th respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the deeming clause for cessation of membership and the jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of cessation of membership in the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the bar under Section 73D of the M.C.S. Act does not apply to the petitioner for contesting the election to the Managing Committee of the coop....
Proper raising of objections and grounds, adherence to procedural requirements, and fair opportunity for all parties to present their case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disqualification under Section 73CA of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, operates independently of other provisions, and the c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility of each petitioner as agriculturists and residents of the society must be considered individually by the statutory authorities....
The Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies lacks jurisdiction over election disputes, which must be adjudicated by the Cooperative Election Commission per the relevant regulations.
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
