SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Bom) 494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Mrs. Manohar Sujata Kapadia S.H., JJ.
Firozali Abdulkarim Jivani another .... Petitioners.
Versus
Union of India others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1538 of 1989, decided on 15/16-10-1991.
Advocates appeared :
R.V. Pai with Ms. Bina Vaidya N.D. Lapasiya i/b. Niranjan Co., for petitioners.
M.N. Morje, for respondents Nos. 1 2.
C.U. Bora with R.A. Dada Prashant Naik, for respondent No. 6.
R.M. Kadam i/b. Thakore Jariwala Associates, for respondent No. 7.
Dr. B.R. Naik i/b. Mahimtura Co., for respondent No. 8.

Headnote:Article 226- Writ against private person- Whether writ would lie for enforcement of statutory duty imposed upon.

       Returning Officer a private individual required to be appointed by Board of Directors Bank is States. Act casts statutory duties and obligations on Returning Officer as well as on Co-operative Bank. For enforcement of these statutory duties and obligations writ would lie against private individual.

       

       MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1984

       Section 37, Explanation-Restriction on holding of office of society for more that two consecutive terms-Act came Into force on 16th September 1985 Person holding office of President by virtue of his nomination to that post on 30th June 1981- Thereafter that person after coming with force of Act was elected as President-Election terms came to end in April 1989.

       By virtue of Explanation of Section 37 earlier term before election will count as term for purpose of Section 37 irrespective of fact that earlier term was by virtue of nomination and not by election.

       Section 40- Dispute relating to election of Officer of Society No provision In Section for adjudication of dispute relating to election of officer of society

       The Central Registrar under Section 40 supervises the enforcement of the provisions contained in Sections 34, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act. When there is clear violation of these provisions, he can remove an office bearer from the office Section 40 does not deal with challenge relating to election of an officer of society.

       The very fact that any detailed procedure for adjudication of any dispute under Section 40 is not provided, indicates that Section 40 is meant for conferring a supervisory jurisdiction on the Central Registrar for enforcement of Sections 34, 36, 37 and 39. It is not meant for adjudication of disputes between members and or officers of Multi-State Co-operative Society, much less a dispute relating to the election of an officer of the society.

JUDGMENT - MRS. MANOHAR SUJATA, J.:—The petitioners are members and shareholders of the Development Co-operative Bank Limited, the 6th respondent, which is a Multi-State Co-operative Society registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the acceptance by the returning officer (respondent No. 7) of the nomination of respondent No. 8, Baddruddin Ahmed Pradhan for the post of the President of respondent No. 6 Bank at the elections held on 23rd April, 1989 and the subsequent election of respondent No. 8 to the post of the President of respondent No. 6 Bank.

2. For the purpose of this petition it is necessary to state in brief the history of this Bank. Prior to 30th June, 1981 there was a co-operative bank known as the Ismailia Co-operative Bank Limited. Respondent No. 8 was the President of this bank since March 1979. There was also in existence another Co-operative Bank known as the Masalawala Co-operative Bank Limited. Both these banks were registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Both these banks were amalgamated by an order dated 30th June, 1981 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bombay, in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. As a result of this amalgamation a new bank viz., respondent No. 6 Bank was brought into existence and the registrations of the two amalgamating banks in terms of the provisions of section 9(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 were cancelled from the date of the order of amalgamation.

3. As per the scheme of amalgamation, a Board of Directors consisting of eight directors was nominated to hold office for a period of three years from the date of the order. Respondent No. 8 was nominated by this order as the President of the Board of Directors. Respondent No. 8 continued to hold the office of the President by nomination till 1986.

4. On and from 16th September, 1985 the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 came into effect. The 6th respondent Bank, which had its area of operation not merely in the State of Maharashtra but also in part of Andhra Pradesh, was deemed to be registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. On the date when the Multi-State Co-operative Act, 1984 came into operation respondent No. 8 was holding the office of President of respondent No. 6 Bank by nomination. He continued to so hold this post. The election of the President and the members of the Board of Directors of the 6th respondent Bank was held for the first time on 6th April, 1986. At these elections respondent No. 8 was again elected as the President of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 6 Bank.

5. Under the provisions of section 35(3) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 the terms of office of the elected members of the Board shall not exceed three years from the date of election. Accordingly, on 15th March 1989, an election programme was declared for elections to be held on 23rd April 1989 to the Board of Directors, including the President of the 6th respondent Bank.

6. Respondent No. 8 again filed his nomination for the post of the President of the Board of Directors of the 6th respondent Bank on 3rd April 1989. Petitioner No. 1 objected to the nomination form of respondent No.8 on the ground that he was not entitled to stand for election for another term of office as President of the 6th respondent Bank in view of the provisions of section 37 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. Despite this objection, however, respondent No. 7, who was the returning officer, accepted the nomination of respondent No. 8.

7. On 12th April, 1989 the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1115 of 1989 challenging the acceptance of the nomination of respondent No. 8 by the Returning Officer. This writ petition, however, was rejected by a learn






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top