Clause (viii) of bye-law No. 25 of the Bank's Bye-laws does not include employees of the Bank itself, but only employees of other co-operative societies operating within the area of the Bank.

Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - ELECTION OF DIRECTORS - ELIGIBILITY OF EMPLOYEES OF THE BANK - INTERPRETATION OF BYE-LAW 25(VIII) - WHETHER IT INCLUDES EMPLOYEES OF THE BANK - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner No.1, an employee of the respondent No.5, Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank, Ltd., Amravati, was elected as a Director of the Bank. The respondent No.1, who was also a candidate for the said seat, raised an objection to the nomination of the petitioner No.1 on the ground that he was disqualified to be a candidate, for the Directorship of the respondent No.5 on the ground that he was an employee of the respondent No.5. The objection was overruled by the Returning Officer and the petitioner No. 1 after the result of the election was declared as duly elected to the office of the Director. The respondent No.1 thereafter raised a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 raising the same objection. The Nominee of the Registrar overruled the objection of the respondent and held that the petitioner No.1 as the representative of the petitioner No.2 was validly elected. This order of the Registrars Nominee was challenged by the respondent No.1 before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, Bombay. The Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, respondent No.6 in this petition, set aside the order of the Registrars Nominee and declared the election of the petitioner No.1 to be invalid on the ground that the petitioner No.1 being an employee of the Bank which is also a registered Society was incompetent to get himself elected to the office of the Director.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that clause (viii) of bye-law No. 25 does not include a paid officer or servant of the Bank, but it refers to any other co-operative societies in the said area excluding the Bank. There is, therefore, no bar to the employee, such as the petitioner No.1, of the Bank who is a member of the petitioner No.2 or any other society to contest the election for the office of the Director of the Bank-respondent No.5. The petitioner No.1 was, therefore, validly nominated as a candidate for the election of the Director of the Bank and was also validly elected for the same and the order of the Co-operative Tribunal holding the election of the petitioner No. 1 as invalid. On the ground that he was a paid employee of the Bank is illegal and erroneous.
Issues: Whether clause (viii) of bye-law No. 25 includes employees of the Bank.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted clause (viii) of bye-law No. 25 of the Bank's Bye-laws, which provides that "No paid officer or servant of any co-operative society operating within the area of the Bank shall be eligible for being elected or nominated as a director or as a Local Auditor of the Bank." The Court held that this clause does not include employees of the Bank itself, but only employees of other co-operative societies operating within the area of the Bank. The Court reasoned that the Bank is a separate legal entity from the other co-operative societies, and that there is no rational basis for prohibiting employees of the Bank from becoming Directors of the Bank, while allowing employees of other co-operative societies to do so.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the order of the Co-operative Tribunal dated 20th August 1968, which had held the election of the petitioner No. 1 as invalid. The Court also directed the respondent No. 1 to pay the costs of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

PADHYE J.-The petitioner No.2 is a Non-agricultural Credit and Industrial Co-operative Society in the district of Amravati and the petitioner No.1 is member thereof. This Society is formed of the employees of the respondent No.5 Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank, Ltd., Amravati, which is also a Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner No.1 is an employee of the respondent No.5.

2. Elections to the Board of Directors of the respondent No.5 were held on 27-9-1966 and according to the constitution of the Board of Directors, the Non-agricultural Credit and Industrial Co-operative Societies in the district were to elect one Director to represent them. That is provided by the bye-law No.15 (1) (b) of the Bye-laws framed for the respondent No.5 Co-operative Society. The petitioner No.1 representing the petitioner No.2 Society of which he was a member, filed his nomination paper for the seat of a Director and he was opposed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for the said seat. In that election, the petitioner No.1 was elected for the office of the Director of the respondent No.5 Bank. To the nomination of the petitioner No.1, the respondent No.1 Gopa1rao had raised an objection before the Returning Officer on 7-9-1966 to the effect that he was disqualified to be a candidate, for the Directorship of the respondent No.5 on the ground that he was an employee of the respondent No.5. This objection was overruled by the Returning Officer and the petitioner No. 1 after the result of the election was declared as duly elected to the office of the Director.

3. The respondent No.1 thereafter raised a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 raising the same objection. The Nominee of the Registrar overruled the objection of the respondent and held that the petitioner No.1 as the representative of the petitioner No.2 was validly elected. This order of the Registrars Nominee was challenged by the respondent No.1 before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, Bombay. The Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, respondent No.6 in this petition, set aside the order of the Registrars Nominee and declared the election of the petitioner No.1 to be invalid on the ground that the petitioner No.1 being an employee of the Bank which is also a registered Society was incompetent to get himself elected to the office of the Director. The order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, Bombay, is challenged by the petitioners by this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection to the effect that since the term for the office of the Director of the respondent No.5 Bank has now expired and fresh elections were to be held on 23rd of November 1969, the petition has become infructuous and it is not now, therefore, necessary to decide the question whether the petitioner No.1 was eligible to be elected as a Director of the Bank. We are, however, not informed if any election has actually taken place on the 23rd of November 1969 as previously fixed and as to the result of such an election, if any. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent No.1 that for the fresh elections which were to be held on 23-11-1969, the petitioner No.1 was not a candidate for the said office, but some other member of the petitioner No.2 had filed his nomination for the said elections and on that ground also this petition was not competent. We do not think that this petition should be thrown out only on this ground. Besides the petitioner No. 1 who was elected in the last election in the year 1966, there is another petitioner, namely, Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Co-operative Society, Limited Amravati and the order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, if left to stand as it is the petitioner No.2 Society itself and all its members would be affected thereby, inasmuch as no member

Click Here to Read the rest of this document