SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Bom) 611

Bombay High Court
F. Rebello and R. M. Savant
SANJAY D.JADHAV -Appeallant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA -RESPONDENTS
W. P. 1919 Of 2007
Decided On: 04/25/2007

Advocates Appeared:
S.A.Rajeshirke, S.P.KADAM, S.S.Salunke

Headnote:Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 73-C - Vindh Karyakari Sahakari Society - Bye-law No. 38 - Managing Committee of society - Election of - Borrower and non-borrower constituency - Restriction of voting in - Right of voting to members belonging to respective constituencies not restricted by bye-laws - Separated constituencies created for borrower and non-borrower - Voting right have to be restricted - Though no specific bar in bye- laws. - A reading of the bye-law makes it absolutely clear that there are three separate constituencies carved out. However, in view of the present position wherein there were only two constituencies i.e. borrower and non-borrower constituencies in the respondent No. 3 society. Though there is no express bar in bye-laws restricting the right of voting to the members belonging to the respective constituencies, the fact that separate constituencies have been created would imply that the right of voting would have to be necessarily restricted as otherwise there would have been no necessity of carving out separate constituencies and only the seats could have been reserved for the said categories. High Court, therefore, find considerable merit in the submission of the counsel for the respondents that in view of the fact that separate constituencies have been carved out for borrower and non-borrower members, voting right would therefore have to be restricted. Another aspect to be noted is that Clause 38-E in respect of the weaker section, SC/ST and lady representatives. All the members of the society have been given a right to vote. This can be attributed to the fact that the seats have been reserved for the said categories in the Managing Committee. However, no separate constituencies have been created by the bye-laws. Therefore, the counsel for the respondents are right in their submission that in the said three categories right of voting has been given to all the members. If the right of voting was to be given to all the members in respect of borrower and non-borrower constituency, there would have been no need to specifically mention in bye-law 38-E that a right of voting in respect of the said three constituencies mentioned therein is given to all the members.

       High Court, therefore, find that the challenge of the petitioner to the restrictive right of voting in respect of the borrower and non-borrower constituency is bereft on any merit. The fact that separate constituencies have been created is a pointer to the fact that voting right would be restricted though there is no specific bar in the said bye-laws.

       

R. M. SAVANT, J.

( 1 ) RULE. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

( 2 ) THE Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a dispute in respect of various issues relating to elections of the Managing committee of respondent No. 3 - The Hanuman Vividh Karyakari Sahakari society Ltd. (hereinafter refereed to for the brevity sake as "the said Society" ). The issues raised by the petitioners are inter-alia the appointment of respondent no. 4 as an Election Officer fixing the date as 1-1-2007 for being eligible to vote and transferring 64 members from borrower constituency to non-borrower constituency. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. P. Kadam however at the threshold submitted that he is not pressing the same issues and will adopt appropriate remedies available to the petitioner in law for redressal of his grievances in respect of the said issues. Mr. Kadam submitted that the only issue that he desires to agitate in this Petition is as regards the issue relating to constituency reserved for borrower members in which only borrower members would be allowed to vote and similarly for the constituency of non-borrower members, only non-borrower members will be allowed to vote. Mr. Kadam submitted that the petitioner desires to restrict the above Petition to the said issue. We are therefore not called upon to decide the other issues except the said issue as submitted by Mr. Kadam.

( 3 ) THERE was an earlier round of litigation in respect of the elections to respondent No. 3 - society. Earlier Writ Petition No. 6187 of 2006 filed by one dnyandeo Ramrao Kadam and others, came to be disposed of by a Division bench of this Court vide order dated 8-1-2007 to which one of us (F.. Rebello, J.) was a party. The said order has been annexed as Exhibit "c" to the above petition. By the said order, it has been held that respondent No. 2 to the Petition, could not have interfered with the electoral process as that power could not have been conferred by the Act and Rules on respondent No. 2, as respondent No. 3 herein not being a notified society, right to conduct the elections would be of the society in terms of the bye-laws. In terms of the said direction in Clause "c" of the said order, the entire exercise of holding the elections to respondent No. 3 herein was to be completed within four weeks from the date of the order. Respondent No. 3 by resolution dated 22-1-2007 appointed respondent No. 4 as on Electoral Officer for conducting the said elections for the term of five years from 2007 to 2011. Respondent No. 3 furnished a list of voters on 31-1-2007 for the purpose of preparing a provisional list of voters. The provisional list of voters was published on 13-2-2006 and time granted for submitting the objections and compliance as regards the provisional list of voters on 28-2-2007 and final list of voters was to be published on 13-3-2007. Accordingly the said stages of elections has passed and the above Petition was heard at the time when the stage of withdrawal of the nomination was reached as per the election programme.

( 4 ) AS indicated above, the issue in the Petition is restricted to the non- borrower voting for the persons contesting in the non-borrowers constituency and borrower voting for the persons contesting in the non-borrowers constituency. The voting is restricted within the said constituency and there is no interchangeability.

( 5 ) IT would be relevant to extract the bye-law regarding the composition of the Managing Committee. The said bye-law 38 of respondent No. 3 - Society but the true translation was made available for our benefit by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The translated bye-law is reproduced hereunder :-

38. The Management of the Society should be looked after by the managing committee. The committee would be of 10 members. The constitution of the committee would be as under. i) Khatedar (Land Holder)/borrower member representative - 5. ii











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top