JUDGMENT - N. P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:--The nominations of the three petitioners in these petitions were rejected on the ground that they violate the requirement prescribed under Clause E of Election Rule No. 2 appended to the bye-laws. The requirement is that the candidate, on the date of filing of the nomination, should not be himself defaulter, or should not be a surety to a defaulter-borrower. The fact that the petitioners are sureties for the borrowing members who are defaulters is not in dispute.

2 The rejection of the nomination papers by the respondent No. 3 has been challenged firstly on the ground that there is no power with the Co-operative Society-respondent No. 4 to frame such a bye-law since it would be in derogation with the specific provision made by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, in section 73-FF and section 73-FFF. It is also contended by the petitioners, that there cannot be a bye-law which could further make restriction on the democratic right of the member to contest election apart from those which have been provided for by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and under the rules made thereunder. Further submission made by Shri Talekar, Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, is that every bye-law should have a nexus with the object to be achieved. To put a restriction that the candidate should not have been defaulter is understandable since it has nexus with the object that the defaulter should not be allowed to administer the Co-operative Society. But if a person for whom the candidate stands surety commits a default, the candidate cannot be blamed and, therefore, on this count, the bye-laws will have to be struck down since it does not further betterment of the co-operative movement. Shri Talekar further submitted that even in the case of Specified Co-operative Societies which have been assigned an important position in the co-operative movement and is recognised so by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, there is no disqualification prescribed on these lines as is prescribed in the present Society. On this count, the submission made by the petitioners is that the order of the Returning Officer rejecting nomination papers of the petitioners, confirmed in appeal by learned Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, should be set aside and they be allowed to contest the election.

3. There is no difficulty in accepting the proposition that a bye-law cannot override the Rules or the Act. It is also well settled that the bye-law have no statutory force. As was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of (Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and others v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others)1, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 245 :

"The bye-law that are contemplated by the Act can be merely those which govern the internal management, business or administration of a society. They are of the nature of the Articles of Association of a company incorporated under the Companies Act. They may be binding between the persons affected by them, but they do not have the force of a statute."

The purpose for providing for the bye-laws in the constitution of the Co-operative Societies is to enable the members who form a Society to frame additional rules for the governance of the Society. However, one Co-operative Society may have requirements different from the other Co-operative Society and it may frame bye-laws which would suit its purposes including providing for the qualifications and disqualifications in the election of the Society.

4. Section 2(5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, defines "bye-laws" as bye-laws registered under this Act and for the time being in force and includes registered amendments of such bye-laws. Section 8 of the said Act requires that the copy of the proposed bye-laws should be forwarded to the Registrar along with the application for registration. While deciding the application for registration, the Registrar has t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document