Back
1972 Supreme(Ker) 205
Judges : P.GOVINDA NAIR,K.SADASIVAN
NARAYANAN NAMBIAR - Appellant
Versus
THE DY.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 3137 of 1972
Decided On : 10/27/1972
Advocates Appeared :
V. Bhaskaran Nambiar; For Petitioner T. C. Mohandas; For Respondents
Disputes in connection with the election can only be raised after an election, and the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to pass the order Ext. P2 on the eve of the election.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - Co-operative Societies Act - S.69 - S.91 - Art.71(1) of the Constitution - The court discussed the interpretation of S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and its similarity with S.91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The court also referred to the interpretation of Art.71(1) of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. The court held that disputes in connection with the election can only be raised after an election, and therefore, the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to pass the order Ext. P2 on the eve of the election. The order was set aside and the writ application was allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction and power of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies to pass an order under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 on the eve of an election to the managing committee of a co-operative bank.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction under S.69 of the Act on the eve of the election to deal with an application for stay pertaining to the election and pass the order Ext. P2. The order was set aside and the writ application was allowed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction and power to pass the order Ext. P2 under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 on the eve of the election.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disputes in connection with the election can only be raised after an election, based on the interpretation of S.69 of the Act and its similarity with S.91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The court also referred to the interpretation of Art.71(1) of the Constitution by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The order Ext. P2 was set aside and the writ application was allowed. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
1. The only question arising for decision in this case is whether the first respondent, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cannanore, had jurisdiction and power to pass the order Ext. P2 dated 23-6-1972 under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter called the Act). An election to the managing committee of the Azhikode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. was notified to be held on the 25th June, 1972. The last date for filing nominations was 13-6-72 and the date for scrutiny was 14-6-72. The petitioner who was a candidate and who bad been nominated was successful at the scrutiny. His nomination paper was accepted by the second respondent, returning officer by order dated 14-6-72- One of the members of the Society moved O. P. No. 3077 of 1972 challenging the order dated 14-6-72 and this petition was dismissed by this court on 22-6-72. Nothing daunted he approached the first respondent, the very next day, and sought a stay of the election that was to take place on the 25th June, 1972. The first respondent had no hesitation to order the stay which he did almost immediately on the presentation of the petition, by Ext. P2 order. That gave rise to this petition and C. M. P. No. 8264 of 1972 was filed for staying the operation of Ext. P2- A stay was ordered on 26-6-72 by order on C. M. P. No. 8265 of 1972. This court directed the second respondent, returning officer to conduct the election to the committee of the Azhikode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. within a period of one month from 11-7-72. An election has now been held and the only question for consideration is whether Ext. P2 order was passed with jurisdiction.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has contended on the principle of the decision in Dr. Narayan Shankar Khare v. Election Commission of India (AIR. 1957 SC. 694) that under S.69 of the Act the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to act under the section in relation to any dispute in connection with an election, before the election bad taken place. The Supreme Court decision was given with reference to the provision in Art.71(1) of the Constitution which is in these terms:
71(1) All doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President or Vice-President shall be inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court whose decision shall be final".
The Supreme Court observed:
"Article 71(1) confers jurisdiction and power on the Supreme Court to inquire into and decide "all doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President or Vice President"- The word "election" occurring in Art.71(1) must be given the same wide meaning as comprising the entire election process culminating in a candidate being declared elected, therefore, the inquiry is to be made after such completed election. L e., after a candidate is declared to be elected as President or Vice President as the case may be."
3. The principle of this decision has been applied by the Bombay High Court in Madhukar Ganpatrao Somvanshi v. Sheshrao Narayanarao Biradar and others (AIR.1972 Bom.129) in interpreting S.91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. S.91 of that Act provides among other things for the settlement of any dispute touching the constitution and elections of the office bearers of a society.
4. Similarly S.69(1) of the Act has empowered the Registrar to settle various disputes mentioned in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-s. (1) of S.69. Sub-s.(2) of that section states that for the purposes of sub-s. (1) "any dispute arising in connection with the election of the Board of Management or any officer of the society" shall be deemed to be disputes. There is an explanation to clause (c) of sub-s. (2) which is in these terms:
Explanation. A dispute arising at any stage of an election commencing from the convening of the general body meeting for the election shall be deemed to be a dispute arising in connection with the, election."
sub-sections
