JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---By this petition, election of nine members of the Managing Committee of Ashti Sahakari Shetki Kharedi Vikri Samiti Limited, Tahsil Ashti, District Wardha is challenged on the ground that the election programme itself was void on account of failure to simultaneously hold election for two reserved seats under section 73-B of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (the Act).

2. The facts lie in a narrow compass and are these :

The petitioner No. 1 Vishwanath Chopde was a voter and petitioner No. 2 Deepak Bokade was a defeated candidate at that election, programme for which was issued on 6th January, 1987. Result was declared on 16th February and this petition came to be filed on 20th February. It came up for hearing on 23rd February, 1987 when notice before admission was issued and by interim order election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Society was stayed. First respondent Collector, Wardha has made a statement in the return that the fresh election programme for two reserved seats will be issued shortly and unless further procedure laid down in section 73-B is followed, the election of the Chairman and vice- Chairman will not be held.

3. The question mark before us in this background is should we in writ jurisdiction tinker with the election process already undergone at this stage at the behest of parties who have participated at the election took their chance in the same and have approached only because they or their group have lost.

4. As the contention of Shri Daga, the learned Counsel for the petitioners that non-inclusion of the two reserved seats in the election programme by itself vitiates the election is based on the case of (Babaji Kondaji Garad and others v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Limited and others)1, A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court 192, it is necessary to examine the same in some details. By that judgment, Supreme Court has reserved two decision of this Court. The first is the case of (Balashaheb Rajaramji Dampurikar and another v. Collector of Parbhani District and another)2, 1981 Maharashtra Law Journal 893. That was a case where election for two reserved seats was not held. The Collector fixed the date for the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. This procedure was challenged. This Court issued a mandate to fill in two seats by co-option in the first meeting of the Committee and then to hold the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. The second decision is the case of (Hukumchand Chunnilal Bagmar and other v. The Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Limited and others)3, 1983 Maharashtra Law Journal 921 where also election for two reserved seats was not held and fourteen Directors were elected. In the first meeting of the elected Directors, election of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and the Managing Director was held. Provisions of section 73-B was sought to complied in a subsequent meeting by co-option of two directors amongst the members of backward classes and economically weaker section. Even before that stage arrived, election petition under section 144-T challenging the election of office bearers was filed. The election petition was allowed by the Additional Commissioner whose order was challenged in a writ petition. This Court held inter alia that there was no separate electorate to elect a person for reserved seat, the Collector has no power to reduce the number of seats of which the elections are to be held by the number of reserved seats, the number of the seats has to be determined on be the basis of bye-laws only and the mandatory provision to grant representation to the two reserved categories can be complied even by co-option or nomination of persons belonging to reserved categories even subsequent to first meeting of the Committee. In conclusion, the order of the Additional Commissioner setting aside the election was quashed. Appeals against both the aforesaid cases were heard by the Supreme Court together. Supreme Court set aside both the above decisio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document