Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.
Asit Baran Chattopadhyay & Another – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others – Respondents
WP No. 6455 (W) of 2014
Decided On : 08-09-2017
Moloy Basu, Sr. Advocate, Krishnendu Banerjee, Vineet Kothari, Sadhan Roy Chowdhury, Manas Kumar Sadhu, Srijan Nayak, Rituparna Moitra, Raja Saha, Arindam Mitra, Asit Kumar Chakraborty, Sunanda Mohan Ghosh, Sanatan Ghosh, B.B. Saha, Advocates
The judgment emphasizes the importance of natural justice, independent reasoning in orders, and compliance with the qualifications for nomination as a Director under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006.
Headnote:
Election Dispute - West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 - Sec. 32(7), Sec. 134C(10) - The court quashed the impugned orders dated 5 February, 2014 and 12 February, 2014, which declared the delegate election of the Hooghly Sadar PACS Constituency null and void, as they were based on an enquiry report prepared without giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard. The court held that the report was non-binding and the orders lacked independent reasoning, violating the principles of natural justice. The court also found that the petitioner had the requisite qualifications for nomination as a Director of the respondent Bank, as per Sec. 134C(10) of the 2006 Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner No. 2, a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, nominated the petitioner No. 1 as its representative for the election of the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank. The election was postponed and ultimately held, resulting in the rejection of some nominations. Disputes were filed, leading to the impugned orders declaring the delegate election null and void.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were based on an enquiry report prepared without giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the petitioner had the requisite qualifications for nomination as a Director of the respondent Bank.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the impugned orders, the qualifications for nomination as a Director, and the application of Sec. 32(7) and Sec. 134C(10) of the 2006 Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of opportunity for the affected party to be heard, the absence of independent reasoning in the impugned orders, and the petitioner's compliance with the qualifications for nomination as a Director.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed, but the respondent authorities were allowed to take any action in accordance with the law while observing the principles of natural justice.
Brief background of the case:-
1. The petitioner No. 2 is a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society within the meaning of Sec. 4(55) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006. The petitioner no. 2 is affiliated to the Hooghly District Central Co-operative Bank Limited (in short the ‘respondent Bank’). The petitioner no. 1 is an Elected Director of the petitioner no. 2.
2. There are nine seats on the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank. The nine seats are divided amongst three constituencies being Chinsura Sadar (three seats), Chandannagar (three seats) and Arambag (three seats). Out of the three seats in each constituency two seats are for Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies (in short ‘PACS’) and one seat is for non-PACS.
3. Because of its affiliation to the respondent Bank, the petitioner no. 2 is entitled to nominate a delegate to the respondent Bank for the purpose of holding AGM of the Bank and also to hold post of Director of the respondent Bank.
4. For holding election to the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank, the Special Officer of the Bank by a notice dated 27 July, 2012 requested all the societies affiliated to the said Bank for sending the names of their delegates/representatives. The petitioner no. 2 sent the name of the petitioner no. 1 as its representative/delegate to the said Bank.
5. The Assistant Returning Officer published a final list of delegates/representatives on 1 October, 2012. The petitioner no. 1 submitted his declaration form and certificate issued by the petitioner no. 2 society, along with duly filled in nomination form for the purpose of participating in the AGM of the respondent Bank and for contesting the election of the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank. The said form, inter alia, contained the condition that the petitioner no. 2 society is not a defaulter of the respondent Bank and the certificate issued by the petitioner no. 2 society contained, inter alia, the declaration that the petitioner no. 1 is not a defaulter of the petitioner no. 2 society as on 16 October, 2012.
6. The election that was scheduled to be held on 18 November, 2012 was postponed and ultimately the Special General Meeting for the election of directors of the respondent Bank was held on 12 May, 2013. In Chinsura constituency six candidates filed nomination for two PACS seats. Four nominations including the nomination of the respondent no. 13 (in short ‘Giridhari’) were cancelled by the respondent Bank during scrutiny. The petitioner no. 1 (in short ‘Asit’) and one Dulal Ghosh were elected un-contested from the Chinsura constituency. Seven other delegates/representatives of three co-operative societies were also elected. A certificate dated 12 May, 2013 was issued by the Assistant Election Officer certifying that Asit was elected as Director from Hooghly Sadar Sub-Division Constituency.
7. Giridhari filed a Dispute Case No. 6/CEC of 2013 before the Cooperative Election Commission challenging the rejection of his nomination and acceptance of the nomination of Asit. The Cooperative Election Commission after hearing all parties concerned rejected the case by an order dated 2 August, 2013 holding, inter alia, that the election procedure had been conducted in terms of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 and the West Bengal Cooperative Election Commission Regulations, 2012. However, liberty was granted to Giridhari to approach the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Law) West Bengal for redressal of his grievance.
8. Subsequently Giridhari filed a dispute case before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal, being Dispute Case No. 55/RCS of 2013 praying for cancellation of Asit’s delegation and for restraining Asit from acting as office bearer of the respondent Bank. The dispute was referred to an Arbitrator under Sec. 202 of the 2006 Act who issued summons to Asit. Asit appeared before the Arbitrator and challenged the maintainability of the c
