JUDGMENT - BHOSALE D.B., J.:---Rule. Returnable forthwith, Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel, waives service for the respondents. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2.This writ petition raises a short yet important question of law as to whether the number of "nominated members" of the Managing Committee can be counted for forming a quorum of the meeting of such Committee convened for electing its officers. This is particularly so since they are specifically excluded by the provisions of section 27(9) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act) from voting at any election of the officers of such Committee. Since an answer to this question does not involve any factual adjudication, a brief reference thereto would suffice.

3.Respondent No. 3 (for short, the society) is a specified society within the meaning of section 73-G of the Act. Elections of officers of the Committee for the year 2003-04 were due and, therefore, the meeting of the directors was convened on 10-9-2003 by the Election Officer who was nominated by the Collector. At the said meeting, 9 directors out of 17 remained present. Out of 9 directors, one director was a nominee of the financing bank and remaining 8 were elected directors. The Tahsildar, Karveer, who was nominated by the Collector to hold elections of the officers of the Committee, adjourned the meeting to 18-9-2003 at 2 p.m. holding that the nominated director could not be counted for forming quorum. While adjourning the meeting, the Tahsildar made it clear that on the adjourned date of the meeting, even if there was no quorum, the meeting would proceed to elect the Chairman and Vice-chairman. On 10-9-2003, the Managing Director of the society issued a formal notice of the meeting. It was specifically indicated in the notice "that in case the quorum was not available. The meeting of the only those directors who remain present would be held and in the meeting the Chairman and Vice Chairman would be elected". The petitioners have impugned this decision of the Tahsildar and the aforesaid noting appended to the notice of the meeting in the present writ petition. In other words, the decision to hold the meeting on the adjourned date and elect the Chairman and Vice-Chairman even if there was no quorum has been impugned in the writ petition.

4.This Court, 18-9-2003 while issuing a notice for final disposal of the petition, in paragraph 5 of the order held thus:

"5. In so far as interim relief is concerned, the meeting shall be held at the appointed time and place today in the event of quorum is available and the parties would be bound by the decision taken therein. However, in the event there is no proper quorum, the meeting would proceed but the decision taken therein shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of this petition. In other words, the meeting shall proceed as per the scheduled time without any adjournment unless it is for any other purpose if the numbers attending the meeting so desire."

5.In view of this order, the meeting was held as scheduled on 18-9-2003 when once again only 9 directors were present in the meeting, out of which one director was a nominee of the financial institution. The election officer conducted the elections as directed by this Court in its order dated 18-9-2003 but since he was of the view that nominated member could not be counted for forming the quorum, he did not declare the result thereof and kept it in abeyance. It is in this backdrop by consent of the parties, the matter was heard for final disposal.

6.The learned Counsel appearing for the parties submitted that this writ petition involves a substantial question of law of general importance and, therefore, I should decide the question as formulated in the first paragraph of the judgment. It is true that Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Counsel for the petitioners, in the alternative, submitted that since the respondent did not raise any objection to the Tahsildar for adjourning the meeting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document