Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(Aurangabad Bench)
B.N. Deshmukh I.G. Shah, JJ.
Eknath Ashiram Alekar others .... Appellants.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2187 of 1988, decided on 2/3-8-1989.
Advocates appeared :
R.G. Karmarkar, for petitioners in W.P.No. 2187 of 1988.
N.P. Chapalgaonkar, for the petitioners in W.P.No. 417 of 1989.
R.G. Deo, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in W.P.No. 2187 of 1988 and for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 in W.P.No. 417 of 1989.
S.B. Mhase with.D.S. Wable for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in W.P.No. 2187 of 1988 and for Respondents Nos. 4 and 19 in W.P.No. 417 of 1989.
S.B. Deshmukh, for respondents Nos. 5, 7, 9, 11, 12,/16 and 18 in W.P.No. 2187 of 1988 and for respondents Nos. 5 to 12 in W.P.No. 417 of 1989.
A.H. Joshi, for respondents Nos. 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17 19 to 21 in W.P.No. 2187 of 1988 and for respondents Nos. 13 to 16 in W.P.No 417 of 1989.
R.N. Dhorde, for the Interveners in W.P.No. 417 of 1989.
Respondents No. 17 and 18 in W.P.No. 417 of 1989 served.
Rule 19 (1)-Sugar Factory Bye-laws No. 18-Membership-Approval of application-Power of Chairman-Held, Managing Committee is empowered to grant membership and Chairman is not so empowered.
Thus, it is clear from the provisions of Rule 19 (1) and Bye-law No. 18 that the application for membership of any person is required to be approved by the Committee of the society subject, however, to such resolution as the general body of members may in pursuance of the powers conferred on it in that behalf from time to time pass. Mere reading of the relevant rule and the bye-law shows that power to grant approval to the membership vests with the committee of the society. That power is restricted merely to the resolution of the general body, which shows that the general body is also empowered to pass a resolution in this connection giving directions to the Managing Committee and not to any other person or body.
MAHARASHTRA SPECIFIED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (ELECTION TO COMMITTEES) RULES, 1971
Rules 4 and 6-Challenge of list of voters?-Who can challenge-Held, persons admitted to memberships as per rules can raise such dispute-Power of Collector-Collector cannot enquire-He can only ensure identify of voters concerned.
The Collector cannot under Rule 6 (1) embark upon an enquiry into the entitlement of persons mentioned in register of members. He is only permitted to ensure identity of the Voters concerned. The question at the most before the Collector for consideration was regarding the identity of the voter and he could not have considered the question of entitlement to membership of the persons in an enquiry of such nature.
MAHARASHTRA SPECIFIED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ELECTION.TO COMMITTEES RULES, 1971.
Rules 4 and 6-Challenge to list of voters-Person admitted as members -Right to challenge- Held, only members can raise such dispute.
It must be noted at this stage, having regard to the provisions of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies (Election to Committees) Rules, 1971, that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2187 of 1988 had no right to challenge the list of voters or to get their names included in the voters list because, under the provisions of rules 4 and 6 of the 1971 Rules, the power is conferred on the members of the society only.
Rule 6 (1)- Enquiry into entitlement of persons included in register of members Power of Collector for such enquiry-Held, collector can not embark upon enquiry but can only ensure identity of voters concerted.
The Collector cannot under rule 6 (I) embark upon an enquiry into the entitlements of persons mentioned in register of members. He is only permitted to ensure identity of the voters concerned. The question at the most before the Collector for consideration was regarding the identity of the voter and he could not have considered the question of entitlement to membership of the persons in an enquiry of such nature.
2. The substantial questions, which are agitated in these two petitions, are that the membership is granted by Respondent No. 5, who is chairman of the sugar factory, on one single day, i.e. on 30th June, 1988, when all the applications of as many as 3,387 persons were rushed through for the grant of membership. The petitioners contended that the membership is conferred in these 3,387 persons without following procedure prescribed by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960; the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 and the Bye-laws of the sugar factory framed under the Act and Rules. It is further contended that the membership is granted to these 3,387 persons as they are politically friendly to Respondent No. 5 the present Chairman of the sugar factory.
3. The other contention raised in the petitions that as the term of the Board of Directors of the sugar factory was to expire, the membership is conferred on 30-6-1988 on 3,387 persons hurriedly, so that their names could be enrolled in the list of voters for the ensuing election to the Board of Director. According to them, the inclusion of the names of these persons is illegal and is also violative of the principles of natural justice.
4. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2187 of 1988 have contended that all the 870 petitioners are not only sugar-cane growers within the area of operation and within the prescribed reserved zone, but they have also supplied sugar-cane to the sugar factory. The deductions towards several factors, namely, for deposits for shares, non-refundable deposits; and by way of development deposit, were made by the sugar factory and even though, they were eligible to become members of the sugar factory on preferential basis, they are denied the membership and the membership is given to 3,387 persons, many of whom are not eligible to become members of the sugar factory at all. They also contended that there are many persons, who are not owners of any land and who have not grown and supplied sugar-cane to the sugar factory at all but, still they have been made members of the sugar factory on one single day overlooking the preferential claim of the petitioners to become members of the sugar factory.
5. On the contrary, the contention on behalf of the sugar factory and other respondents is that the writ petition is not maintainable, as it involves serval disputed questions of facts. They also maintained that the procedure prescribed by law is not at all flouted, but the membership is conferred on 3,387 persons legally and properly.
6. The contention of the Respondents further is that alternative remedy is also available to the petitioners. Not only that, but, in fact, objections were raised before the Collector for including names of 3,387 persons in the list of voters on the ground of eligibility of membership also. The objections were being considered by the competent authority and, in the meanwhile the process of scrutiny of the voters' list is stopped, because of the intervention of this Court by granting interim relief. According to them therefore the petitioners were pursuing the alternative remedy and in view of that fact, the writ petitions cannot be entertained and should not be entertained.
7. Shri K.G. Deo, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the State Government and the officers of the Co-operation Department, contended that in view of the provisions of section 91 of the Act,
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
