Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
Bhutadiya Devabhai Bhalabhai - Petitioner
Versus
The Bhatamal Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd. - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 10744 of 2021
Decided On : 08-08-2022
Election - Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act 1961 - Section 77, 73, 74, Rules 33, 34 - The court discussed the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act 1961, Rules 33 and 34, and the sanctioned bye-laws in relation to the election process of the cooperative society. The court highlighted the interpretation of the provisions and their influence on the decision to grant interim injunction and stay the election process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of a cooperative society, filed a suit to stay the annual general meeting and to direct the society to hold an election as per the Act, Rules, and bye-laws. The Board of Nominees directed to hold the election under the supervision of the District Registrar. The society filed an appeal challenging the order, and the Tribunal granted an interim injunction. The petitioner approached the High Court, seeking to test the legality and validity of the interim order.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to interfere with the interim order, stating that the issue is pending before the Tribunal, and the parties should voice their submissions there. The court emphasized that it is not inclined to test the legality and validity of the interim order at this stage.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality and validity of the interim order granted by the Tribunal, the pending proceedings before the Tribunal, and the petitioner's direct approach to the High Court without exhausting the remedy before the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided not to interfere with the interim order, emphasizing that the issue is pending before the Tribunal, and the parties should present their submissions there. The court highlighted the importance of exhausting the remedy before the Tribunal before approaching the High Court.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court declined to interfere with the interim order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal in Appeal No.39 of 2021. The rule was discharged, and no order as to costs was given.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate for the writ petitioner and Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner is a member of respondent No.1 society and residing at village Bhatamal in Palanpur Taluka, District Banaskantha District. The petitioner is engaged in rearing cattle and supplies milk to respondent No.1 and thereby earns his livelihood. It is the case of the petitioner that managing committee of respondent No.1 society had expired in the year 2017, but no election was being held and therefore, the petitioner gave an application on 17.6.2017 to the Chairman and Secretary of respondent No.1 society. However, in absence of any reply / response, the petitioner gave an application to the District Registrar on 21.6.2017 to ensure the election of respondent No.1 society. The respondent No.1 society, with a view to over-reach the application filed by the petitioner, issued agenda on 24.6.2017 for holding annual general meeting against the provisions of section 77 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act 1961 (“the Act” for short) and tried to evade the election by nominating managing committee of respondent No.1 society instead of holding the election. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the Lavad Suit being Lavad Suit No.107 of 2017 before respondent No.3 praying for staying the annual general meeting dated 24.6.2017 and further requested to direct the society to hold election as per the Act, Rules and Bye-laws. The respondent No.3 granted stay in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 gave an application below Exh.33 on 19.4.2021 stating that respondent No.1 is ready and willing to hold the election as per the Act, Rules and Bye-laws and in view of the same, appropriate order be passed to hold the election. In pursuance of the said application, respondent No.3 passed the order dated 25.6.2021 directing to hold the election under the supervision of the office of the District Registrar, Banaskantha. By an application dated 2.7.2021, the petitioner requested the District Registrar to hold the election as per the order of respondent No.3 dated 25.6.2021. The District Registrar by order dated 3.7.2021 appointed Shri D.K. Aakwod, Cooperative Officer (Milk) as Election Officer for holding the election of respondent No.1 society. It appears that the Election Officer asked for the record from respondent No.1. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid communication, it appears that respondent No.1 filed the review application before the Board of Nominees for reviewing the order dated 25.6.2021 on the ground that since the election is being held in the year 2021, voters list is to be prepared on the basis of the situation as on 31.3.2021. The advocate on behalf of the petitioner filed objections to the said application and respondent No.3 fixed the said application for hearing on 5.7.2021. On 5.7.2021, respondent No.3 orally directed the parties to make their submissions before the District Registrar for holding the election. Respondent No.1 on 3/15.7.2021 preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 praying for stay of the order dated 25.6.2021 passed by respondent No.3. The notice came to be issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2 on 13.7.2021 and the hearing was fixed on 15.7.2021. The petitioner appeared through the advocate and requested for some time. However, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 15.7.2021 staying the order dated 25.6.2021. The said impugned order dated 15.7.2021 reads thus :
Notice be issued to the opponents defendants returnable on 29.7.2021 as
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exhausting the remedy before the Tribunal before approaching the High Court for interference with interim orders.
Point of law: Exclusion or inclusion of the names in the voters list does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such questions are to be decided in....
The court established that the timely conduct of elections for office bearers in cooperative societies is a legal obligation, not subject to arbitrary delays.
A person who is not a party and who has not been served with such notice (notice of the judgment or order) cannot appeal without leave, but a person who might properly have been a party may obtain le....
Where orders are passed condoning the delay, they are discretionary orders and ought not to be interfered with.
Point of Law - Question as to whether the resolution as alleged by the petitioner was passed or not or any new members in the Managing Committee were included or excluded are the substantial question....
Compliance with statutory election procedures within cooperative societies is mandatory to ensure valid electoral processes; neglecting to notify ineligible voters invalidates election actions.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
