Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate & others vs State of Maharashtra & others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1996 Supreme(Bom) 588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Lodha R.M., J.
Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate others.... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 4961 to 4963 4965 to 4967 of 1996, decided on 16-10-1996.
Advocates appeared :
K.K. Singhvi, Prashant Naik, Vijay Patil Y.S. Jahagirdar, for petitioners.
V.A. Gangal, V.M. Parsurami, A.G.P., A.V. Anturkar M.A. Rane, respondents.

Headnote:Section 26-Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971, Rules 6(5), (6) and (7)-Right to vote-Membership-Power of Collector to enquire into-Collector can consider whether a person can exercise right to vote or not in right of Section 26 of Act-But In proceedings under Rule 6(5), (6) and (7) of Rules, cannot go into question whether a person is entitled to be member or not and whether member Is In possession of land as required under Rule 6(6).A careful reading of Section 26 and its plain language which according to Court is clear and unambiguous invites of no two interpretations. It provides in unequivocal terms that rights of member shall not be exercised by any person until he has made payment in respect of membership to the society as prescribed by the rules or bye-laws of the society or has acquired interest in the society as prescribed by the Rules or Byelaws of the society. If the bye-laws of the society prescribes the amount of share of membership and mode of its payment and if such payment is not made, then under Section 26, he is deprived from exercising the rights of member of the society which necessarily shall include the right to vote. In view, therefore. If the occasion arises in the proceeding under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7), the Collector can go into the question whether a person has made payment to the society in respect of membership as prescribed by the rules or bye-laws of the society or not. Such exercise by the Collector cannot be said to be beyond his competence or power. It is true that Collector cannot in the garb of enquiry under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) hold the exercise whether such person is entitled to be a member or not. If the Collector in such enquiry goes into entitlement to membership of person shown in the register of members, it would be without jurisdiction. Lack of Collectors jurisdiction in making enquiry of entitlement to membership of a person shown in the register of members, however, must not be confused and mixed up when a question arises before him in the proceedings under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) of Rule 6 whether such person can exercise right to vote or not, and whenever, such question arises, in view, the Collector has power to consider the said question in the light of Section 26 of the Act of 1960. Otherwise statutory provision of Section 26 of the Act of 1960 would be rendered nugatory. However, the said question has to be decided in summary way only based on application made under Rule 6(5), and the report received from District Deputy Registrar under Rule 6(6). The report of District Deputy Registrar under Rule 6(6) obviously has to be based on record and accounts maintained by the society in accordance with Act Ct 1960 and Rules framed thereunder. The enquiry under Rule 6(6) cannot be enlarged by embarking upon enquiry against society contemplated in Chapter VIII of Act of 1960 including the questions whether the records and books of the accounts have been properly maintained or not by the society. While dealing with an application under Rule 6(5) of Rules of 1971. by an applicant for inclusion of his name in final list of voters if the Collector or for that matter District Deputy Registrar inspects and checks the record and books of account maintained by the society to find its correctness. The Court afraid such course is not permissible. The questions whether the society has maintained its record and books of account properly or not? Whether transactions of society are duly reelected in its record and books or not? And whether entries in the record and books of account are genuine or doubtful are foreign to the scope of enquiry under Rule 6(6) of Rules of 1971.
Section 144-T-Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227-Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226-Appllcations for registering as voters of Society-Names of more than 97% members of society excluded from voters list Applications rejected-Held, this being exceptional case and rejection being on untenable and unjustifiable grounds High Court can Interfere under Article 226.
Rules 6(5)(6) and (7)-Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 26-Question as to entitlement to be a member Power of Collector-Collector cannot go into such question in garb of Inquiry under sub-rules (5)(6) and (7) of Rule 6-However, Collector can go Into question of right to vote in light of Section 26 of Act.

JUDGMENT - LODHA R.M., J.:---Rule. Parties by Counsel. By consent, this batch of six writ petitions is heard finally at this stage.

2. Exclusion of more than 10,400 members out of total 10,687 members as voters for the election of Committee (Board of Directors) of Respondent Shriram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited by the Collector, Satara vide its order dated 18-9-1996 is the core issue. In the counter to the core issue is the issue regarding the maintainability of these writ petitions.

3. Shriram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (for short, 'Shriram Karkhana') Respondent No. 8 in writ petition 4961/96 and Respondent No. 7 in other writ petitions is a specified society under section 73-G of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'Act of I960'). The said Shriram Karkhana has set up a sugar factory in Phaltan taluka, District Satara with crushing capacity of 2000 metric tonnes per day. It is also a processing society. The election to the Committee (Board of Directors) of Shriram Karkhana is required to be held by the Collector of Satara under section 73G and Chapter-XIA of the Co-operative Societies Act. The last election to the Board of Directors was held in the year 1991 and it was elected on 8th March, 1991 for a duration of 5 years. Ordinarily the Collector, Satara ought to have held elections to the Board of Directors of Shriram Karkhana before 8th March, 1996, but it was not done and on the matter being taken to this Court the Collector was directed to hold elections to the Board of Directors as expeditiously as possible. The Collector, Satara declared election programme for preparation of voters list under Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971 (for short, 'Rules of 1971') in the first week of June, 1996 and the said programme was modified on 25th June, 1996. According to the modified programme, published by the Collector, the final voters list was to be published by 11th July, 1996. After the provisional list was declared somewhere in the month of June, 1996, the objections were invited and entertained and an order came to be passed by the Collector on 5th July, 1996. It appears that on 20th July, 1996 two writ petitions came to be filed by some members of Shriram Karkhana before this Court challenging the voters list and also order of Collector dated 5-7-1996. The said writ petitions were registered as writ petition Nos. 3038/96 and 3640/96 and were dismissed as withdrawn. Another writ petition No. 3922 of 1996 by another member was also dismissed by this Court on 1-8-1996. The Collector published the final voters list under Rule 6(4) on 2-8-1996 whereby only 266 members were shown as voters out of total number of 10,687 members. After order was passed by the Collector on 2-8-1996, another writ petition No. 4543/96 came to be filed before this Court. It was common ground of the learned Counsel or the parties in the said writ petition that excluded members had made applications under Rule 6(5) and the said applications were pending consideration by Collector under Rule 6(6) and 6(7) of the Rules of 1971. Accordingly that writ petition was disposed of by me on 6-9-1996 directing the Collector to dispose of the applications made by the members under sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of Rules 1971 in accordance with law uninfluenced by his previous order dated 5-7-1996. On 18-9-1996, the Collector, Satara dismissed all applications except five and accordingly out of 10,687 members of the said co-operative society only 271 members find their names in the final voters list.

4. Some facts relating to the amendment in the byelaws of Shriram Karkhana may be adverted to here. The Annual General Meeting of Shriram Karkhana on 14-7-1995 amended its existing byelaws whereby it raised the value of the shares from rupees 1000/- to rupees 2000/-. The amended byelaws were approved by the Registrar on 7-9-1995. On 16-10-1995 the Managing Director of the Shriram Karkhana issued n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(Bom) 588

Cases Referred (1)