The power of the District Deputy Registrar to fill a vacancy in the committee of a specified society under section 77A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is limited to the contingencies specified in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of section 77A and the procedure prescribed in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 77A must be followed.

Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - ELECTION - VACANCY - APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR - POWER OF DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR - MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960 - SECTION 77A - ELECTION RULES, 1971 - RULE 72 - MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES, 1961 - RULE 58.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a member of the committee of a specified society, resigned on 20-3-1979. The District Deputy Registrar, purporting to act under section 77A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, appointed respondent No. 2 as Director in the Board of Directors of the said bank for the remaining period of tenure of the present Board of Directors or till the date of declaration of results of the election to be held under Rule 72 of the Election Rules, whichever is earlier. The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that the District Deputy Registrar did not have the power to fill the vacancy caused by his resignation and that the procedure prescribed in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 77A was not followed.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the District Deputy Registrar did not have the power to fill the vacancy caused by the petitioner's resignation as none of the contingencies contemplated by clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of section 77A existed. The court also held that the District Deputy Registrar failed to observe the procedure prescribed in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 77A.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Deputy Registrar had the power to fill the vacancy caused by the petitioner's resignation? 2. Whether the District Deputy Registrar followed the procedure prescribed in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 77A?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the District Deputy Registrar did not have the power to fill the vacancy caused by the petitioner's resignation as none of the contingencies contemplated by clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of section 77A existed. The court held that clause (a) would not apply as the petitioner was not disqualified at the time of his election and that clause (b) would not apply as no election had been held to fill the vacancy. 2. The court held that the District Deputy Registrar failed to observe the procedure prescribed in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 77A as he did not publish a notice on the notice board at the head office of the society inviting objections and suggestions with respect to the proposed order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the District Deputy Registrar appointing respondent No. 2 as Director in the Board of Directors of the said bank.

JUDGMENT - Ginwala A.A. J. -The Yavatmal District Central Co-operative Bank Limited is a society specified under section 73G of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Members of the committee of a specified society are elected under the provisions of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Election Rules'). The petitioner was elected as a member of the committee of the said bank on 25–10–1978 repre-senting the Maregaon Block Development Constituency. On 20–3-1979 he tendered his resignation as a member of the committee and the Chairman of the Bank accepted this resignation on that very day and intimated the vacancy to the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Yavatmal (respon-dent No. 1) on 23–3-1979. The vacancy caused due to the resignation of the petitioner was required to be filled in under the provisions of Rule 72 of the Election Rules. The elections to the Committees of specified societies are governed by Chapter XI-A of the Act and under section 144-C occurring in that chapter, it is the Collector who has to fix the date for the election and the election has to be conducted under his control by such Returnig Officer as he may appoint in this behalf. In pursuance of this provision the District Deputy Registrar requested the Collector, Yavatmal to hold the bye-election to fill in the vacancy caused by the resignation of the petitioner. Accordingly the Collector published a provisional list of voters on 20–7-1979 and he also published the final list of voters on 30–8-1979. He could not hold the bye-election because on 5–9-1979 the State Government (respondent No. 3)'post-poned the elections of committees of specified societies generally. However, the State Government directed the Collector to hold election on 21–1-1980 and the Collector in his turn published the provisional list of voters on 20–8-1981.

2. On 4–9-1981 the District Deputy Registrar in the purported exercise of his powers under section 77A of the Act, appointed respondent No. 2 as Director in the Board of Directors of the said bank for the remaining period of tenure of the present Board of Directors or till the date of declaration of results of the election to be held under Rule 72 of the Ejection Rules, which-ever is earlier. In the preamble to this order the District Deputy Registrar traced the history as to how the seat had become vacant and proceeded to state that that seat was vacant even till the date when he passed that order and that it was necessary to fill the said vacancy. It is this order passed by the District*Deputy Registrar on 4–9-1981 which is under challenge before us in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. The challenge of the petitioner to the impugned order is two-fold. He firstly contends that section 77A of the Act did not confer any power on the District Deputy Registrar to fill in the vacancy caused by his resignation as such a contingency was not covered by any of the clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 77A which embodied conditions precedent for exercising the power under that section. In other words, it is contended that none of the clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 77A were applicable to the facts of the present case and hence the District Deputy Registrar did not derive any power under that section to appoint respondent No. 2 and to fill in the vacancy even for a shorter period till the result of by-election held under Rule 72 of the Rules. The second leg of the argument is that the power conferred on the District Deputy registrar under section 77A is subject to a further condition as contained in the first proviso which requires him to publish a notice on the notice board at the head office of the society, inviting objections and suggestions with respect to the proposed order within a period specified in the notice and to consider all such objections

Click Here to Read the rest of this document