A co-operative society is not a local authority within the meaning of section 3(26) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, and therefore, its employees are not disqualified from contesting elections to Gram Panchayats under section 14(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

Headnote:
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT ELECTION - DISQUALIFICATION - SECTION 14(I) OF THE BOMBAY VILLAGE PANCHAYATS ACT, 1958 - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - WHETHER A LOCAL AUTHORITY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 3(26) OF THE BOMBAY GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1904.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, residents of village Kakaddati, filed their nomination papers for the Gram Panchayat election. The Returning Officer rejected their nomination papers under section 14(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, on the ground that they were in the service of a co-operative society, which was considered a local authority.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the co-operative society in question was not a local authority within the meaning of section 3(26) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, and therefore, the petitioners were not disqualified under section 14(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Issues: Whether the co-operative society in question was a local authority within the meaning of section 3(26) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted section 3(26) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, and held that a local authority must have certain distinctive attributes and characteristics, such as a separate legal existence, a defined area of operation, a degree of autonomy, and the power to raise funds. The court found that the co-operative society in question did not possess these attributes and characteristics, and therefore, it could not be considered a local authority.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Returning Officer's order rejecting the petitioners' nomination papers and allowed the petition.

JUDGMENT - QAZI M.M., J.:—The petitioners are residents of village Kakaddati, taluqa Pusad, district Yavatmal, and their names are included in the voters' list of Gram Panchayat, Kakaddati. The respondent No. 2 Collector, Yavatmal, appointed respondent No. 1 V. N. Muley as Returning Officer to hold the election of Gram Panchayat, Kakaddati. The Tahsildar had published the election programme. The last date for filing the nomination papers was 5-5-1986; the date of scrutiny of nomination papers was 6-5-1986 and the date for withdrawal of the nomination papers was 8-5-1986, while 21-5-1986 was the date of polling. In pursuance of the election programme, the petitioners filed their nomination papers. However, certain persons raised objection to the nomination papers filed by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were in the service of the Yavatmal Zilla Sahakari Soot Wa Kapad Girni, which is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The respondent No. 1 Returning Officer upheld their objection and rejected the nomination papers of all the petitioners under section 14(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). Being aggrieved by this order, the present petition has been filed.

2. There is no dispute that the petitioners are in the service of the Yavatmal Zilla Sahakari Soot Wa Kapad Girni. However they contended that section 14(i) of the Act is not attracted in their case and, therefore, the rejection of their nomination papers is contrary' to the provisions of law and hence cannot be sustained.

3. Section 14(i) reads as under:

“14. No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such, who—

** ** ** ** **

(i) is a servant of the Government or a servant of any local authority.”

In view of this provision, the only question that falls for our consideration is: whether the petitioners can be said to be in the service of any local authority. The expression 'local authority' has not been defined in the Act. However, the same has been defined in the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, as under:

“3(26). 'local authority' shall mean a Municipal Corporation, Municipality, Local Board, Body of Port Trustees or Commissioners or other authority, legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with the control or management of the municipal or local fund.”

4. It has been pointed out by the petitioners in the petition that they are in the service of the co-operative society which is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and that such a society is not a local authority. It is further stated by them that the co-operative societies have neither the control nor the management of any municipal or local funds. They further stated that it is a function on co-operative basis and have their own funds and a separate management not connected with either the management or the control over the municipal or local fund. Return has been filed only by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and they have not controverted this statement in the petition. The Returning Officer has also passed a very brief order without giving any reason as to how the co-operative society can be brought within the definition of 'local authority'. Having regard to these facts. Mr. Palshikar has vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the returning officer is contrary to law and cannot, therefore, be sustained. He has further submitted that the Returning Officer has misconceived and misinterpreted section 14(i) of the Act and section 3(26) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. He relied on the decision reported in A.I.R. 1967 Allahabad 121, (Sobhnath v. Raj Kishore others)1. The observations made by the Allahabad High Court in paras 9 and 10 of the said judgment completely support the contention of Mr. Palshikar. Para 9 is reproduced below:

“9. In our judgment the authorities included in the expression “local authority” are those authorities which partake in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis