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) 1632

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
B.H.Marlapalle & S.R.Sathe, JJ.
Gulab Rameshnath Khote -Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra -Respondents
Writ Petition No.457 of 2007.
Decided on : 27th Nov., 2007

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
Mr.A.V.Anturkar for the Petitioner
Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni,Associate Adv. General for the Respondents 1 to 3

Headnote:Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 73(1-AB) - Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 226 - Enactment under Act - Constitutional validity of - Presumption remains always in favour of constitutionality of an enactment - Burden lies upon person who alleges otherwise to show that there is clear transgression of constitutional principles. - It is well settled that there is always presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the enactment and the burden is upon him who alleges otherwise to show that there has been clear transgression of the constitutional principles. The Apex Court has also time and again emphasized that it must be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of his own people and laws are made to solve the problems faced in proper implementation of the Act. Bearing in mind the said principle, if we see the averments in the petition, as well as the submissions made by the advocate for the petitioner, it appears that not even a single specific ground is shown by the petitioner on the basis of which it can be said that the above mentioned provision is ultra vires. On the contrary, having realised that in many societies the members of the Managing Committee exercise their powers indiscriminately the above section has been added.

       Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 73(1-AB) - Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 226 - Enactment of - Constitutional validity of - Challanged - Presumption always available in favour of constitutionality of an enactment - Burden lies on person who challenged constitutional principles to show that there is clear transgression of principles. - It is needless to say that it is well- settled that there is always presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the enactment and the burden is upon him who alleges otherwise to show that there has been clear transgression of the constitutional principles. The Apex Court has also time and again emphasized that it must be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of his own people and laws are made to solve the problems faced in proper implementation of the Act. Bearing in mind the said principle, if High Court see the averments in the petition, as well as the submissions made by the advocate for the petitioner, it appears that not even a single specific ground is shown by the petitioner on the basis of which it can be said that the above mentioned provision is ultra vires.

JUDJMENT (Per S.R.Sathe, J).

1. Being aggrieved by the provision made in Section 73(1AB) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) that the member who fails to execute such bond within a specified period shall be deemed to have vacated his office as member of the Committee, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and prayed that the said provision be declared ultra vires.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this Writ Petition are as under: . There is a Co-operative Housing Society by name Khatauwadi Tenants Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as KTCH Society) at Grant Road, Mumbai. Election for the Managing Committee of the said KTCH Society took place on 16.2.2005 and 8 members were declared as elected. The Petitioner is one of the elected members. One Mrs. N.M.Kumta was removed from the post of Chairman of KTCH Society. Some litigation was going on between the said Kumta and the society. During the inquiry of the said proceeding, the petitioner and other members of the Managing Committee of KTCH Society came to know that it was necessary for them to give a bond within 15 days as per the provisions of Section 73 (1AB) of the said Act. Realising the mistake or default committed by them, the petitioner and two other members of the Managing Committee of the said KTCH Society executed a bond and handed over the same to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, D Ward.

3. The relevant provisions are as under Section 73 (1AB) The members of the committee shall be jointly and severally responsible for the decisions taken by the committee during its term relating to the business of the society. The members of the committee shall be jointly and severally responsible for all the acts and ommissions detrimental to the interest of the society. Every such member shall execute a bond to that effect within fifteen days of his assuming the office, in the form as specified by the State Government by general or special order. The member who fails to execute such bond within the specified period shall be demand to have vacated his office as a member of the committee. Rule 58A reads as under: Bond to be executed by elected members of Managing Committee:- Every elected member of the Managing Committee shall execute a bond in Form M-20 within fifteen days of his assuming the office. Such bond shall be executed on the stamp paper as provided under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The expenditure on stamp paper shall be borne by the society. The Chief Executive Officer/Secretary of the Society shall receive such bonds and keep them on record of the society and accordingly inform the Registrar within fifteen days from formation of the Committee. After coming to know the above provisions the petitioner felt that the above mentioned provision has the effect of nullifying the election which was held in a democratic way and after spending considerable time and money. According to petitioner, the provision whereby it was said that the member who has failed to execute a bond within specified period shall be deemed to have vacated his office as a member of the Committee, was in fact illogical, particularly, when in earlier part of the said section it was clearly stated as to what would be the liability of the members of the Managing Committee. According to the petitioner, he and other members did not execute the bond within specified period because they were not at all aware of the said provision. According to the petitioner, the effect of non execution of the said bond mentioned in the provision is very harsh and if this section is to be implemented scrupulously then the management of thousands of societies would be required to be taken over by the administrators. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition and prayed that a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate direction under Article
















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