Bombay High Court
Abhay Baburao Bargal and others
Versus
Bandopant Tatoba Kolhapure and others
Decided On:

Headnote:MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960.

       Section 2 (5), 2 (19), 13, 23, 165 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961- Rules 8 (1) (e), 19 (iii) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 1,Rule 8 -Bye-laws of Co-operative Society- Enforcement and legal binding effect of - Estoppel - Question of No ambiguity in the bye-laws-The Contention rightly rejected by Courts below that to be qualified as a member an applicant not required to be an actual grower of cotton at any time but required to be only a potential grower of cotton- That decision not to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution - (Co-operative Society - Bye-law of Society - Enforcement and legal binding effect of Grower of cotton).

       In order to be accepted as a grower the applicant must, on the date of application or in the previous season, be a grower of cotton in not less than half acre area of land held by him either as owner or tenant in the area of operation of the Girani. If he does not satisfy this requirement, he is not entitled to be admitted as a grower member. So runs the provision. If in the past other members have been admitted in contravention of the Bye-law would not warrant breach of the Bye-law and such contention has no value when the admission of these persons clearly not satisfying the requirement under the Bye-law is challenged.

       The bye-laws of a Co-operative Society have, together, not mere contractual force but have been given a status somewhat higher than a mere agreement by reason of the aforesaid provisions in the Societies Act and the Societies Rules. Neither a Society nor its general body nor an outsider can legally and validity do anything contrary to the bye-laws, unless the bye-laws are earlier altered in accordance with the statutory provisions by the general body and the amendment registered with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In other words, the actual members as well as the potential members are both bound by the bye-laws. It would not be open even to all the members of Society, without amending the bye-laws, to accept the application of a potential member contrary to the requirement prescribed in the bye-laws.

       Once the construction is clear and the legal position set down and the legally binding effect of the Bye-laws of the Girani appreciated, at arguments based upon past conduct, ratification or estoppel would have 10 be rejected.

       No promise has been given to any applicant to the effect that although he has applied contrary to the bye-laws of the Girani he would be accepted. Any promise, even if made to this effect, would be illegal and invalid. The unqualified applicant has not changed his position except for payment of Rs. 505/- which, of course, will be refundable to him once it is held that he was not a duly qualified applicant and was, therefore, wrongly accepted as a member.

       There is no ambiguity as regards the Bye-law, viz., Bye-law D. 1.2 of the Girani. The Bye-law requires the applicants to be growers of cotton III praesenti. It has also to be conceded that on the totality of the evidence and on a consideration of pleadings the only conclusion which could be properly reached was that the applicants (with the exception of 3 specified) were not growers of cotton at the time of their application, I. e., for the year 1987-88. It is, in my opinion, totally irrelevant that they held lands either as owners or tenants on which cotton could be grown in future. It is equally irrelevant that there are other members of the Girani similarly situate who were accepted as members in the past. Wrongs done in the past cannot assist us either in the correct interpretation of the Bye-law or in upholding the application for membership of those who are patently disqualified, once the proper construction is put as was put by the Co-operative Courts below.

       The contention at all times was that to be qualified as a member an applicant is not required to be an actual grower of cotton at any time but is required to be only a potential grower of cotton. That contention has been considered and rightly rejected by the Courts below. The decision has been given by the Co- operative Appellate Court after due care and attention and is one which is not required to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

       For Citation : 1990 CTJ 844 (Bom)