Back
1978 Supreme(Goa) 5
Goa High Court
TITO MENEZES, J.C.
Jaisingrao Abasaheb Rane - Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Co-operative Societies Goa, Daman and Diu, Panaji - Respondents
Special Civil Appln. (Writ Petn.) No. 61 of 1977
Decided On : 26 April 1978
S.K. Kakodkar, for Petitioner; Joaquim Dias, Govt. Advocate (for Nos. 1 and 3) and S.V. Joshi (for No. 2), for Respondents.
The Registrar of Co-operative Societies does not have jurisdiction to declare the election of a Director of a Co-operative Bank null and void or to direct the Bank to co-opt a member to fill the vacancy caused by the cessation of a Director.
Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - ELECTION OF DIRECTORS - DISQUALIFICATION - DEFAULT IN REPAYMENT OF LOAN - SURETYSHIP - VALIDITY OF ELECTION - JURISDICTION OF REGISTRAR TO DECLARE ELECTION NULL AND VOID - CO-OPTION OF MEMBER - POWER OF REGISTRAR.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Goa State Co-operative Bank, was elected as a Director of the Bank. However, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies declared the election null and void on the ground that the petitioner was a defaulter in repayment of a loan taken by a third party for which he had stood as a surety. The petitioner challenged the Registrar's order, contending that he was no longer a surety at the time of the election and that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to declare the election null and void.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Registrar did not have jurisdiction to declare the election null and void. The Court also held that the Registrar did not have the power to direct the Bank to co-opt a member to fill the vacancy caused by the petitioner's cessation as a Director.
Issues: 1. Whether the Registrar had jurisdiction to declare the election of the petitioner as a Director of the Bank null and void. 2. Whether the Registrar had the power to direct the Bank to co-opt a member to fill the vacancy caused by the petitioner's cessation as a Director.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Registrar did not have jurisdiction to declare the election of the petitioner as a Director of the Bank null and void because: a) Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which gives the Registrar the power to conduct inquiries into the affairs of a Society, does not authorize the Registrar to inquire into the validity of an election. b) The inquiry conducted by the Registrar in the present case was carried out without notice to the petitioner and in breach of the principles of natural justice. 2. The Court held that the Registrar did not have the power to direct the Bank to co-opt a member to fill the vacancy caused by the petitioner's cessation as a Director because: a) Section 87 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which gives the Registrar the power to bring any defect to the notice of a Society and direct the Society to remedy the defect, does not authorize the Registrar to direct the Society to co-opt a member. b) The defect in the present case, if any, was not clearly brought out to the notice of the Society.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 6-9-77.
ORDER :- The petition is directed against the order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the respondent No. 1 herein passed on September 6, 1977 and against some other notices.
2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner Jaisingrao Abasaheb Rane is as follows:-
The impugned action on the part of the respondent No. 1 is politically motivated. Prior to the year 1965 the petitioner was a member of the Congress party in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. In the year 1965 he left the Congress party and joined the ruling Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party. Having thus joined the ruling party he was elected to the Assembly of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu on a Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party ticket during the year 1967 as well as in the next elections in the year 1972. Thereafter, however, upon the death of the former Chief Minister, Bhausaheb Bandodkar the petitioner was not happy with the leadership of the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party of which the present Chief Minister of Goa, Daman and Diu is the President The petitioner therefore left the said party and on May 5, 1977 joined the newly formed Janata Party. The petitioner also contested the elections to the Assembly of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu in June, 1977 from the very constituency from which the present Chief Minister of Goa, Daman and Diu was contesting the elections. The petitioner however lost the said elections.
The present Chief Minister has as a result become very much annoyed on account of the fact that firstly the petitioner left the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party. Secondly because he joined the Janta Party and thirdly as he contested the elections to the Assembly from Bicholim the very constituency from which the Chief Minister herself was also contesting the elections. In the elections so held there were three candidates contesting the elections from Bicholim constituency. Smt. Shashikala Kakodkar who later took over as Chief Minister secured some 6000 votes or thereabouts. The petitioner secured 1400 votes or thereabouts and the third candidate, Shri Vinayak Naik a Congress candidate secured 3500 votes or thereabouts. The petitioner was responsible for division of votes and making the position of the present Chief Minister somewhat shaky in the said elections. This purportedly disturbed the Chief Minister and therefore she continues to bear a grudge against the petitioner. The petitioner further says that the Chief Minister during the election campaign publicly levelled charges against the petitioner though there is neither any merit nor substance in the said charges. These charges were levelled towards the end of May, 1977 or thereabouts. The petitioner replied publicly by saying that he was willing to face an inquiry into the said charges, which he also categorically denied. In view of the said grudge the Chief Minister is purportedly pursuing a policy of vendetta against the petitioner particularly in the co-operative field. The Chief Minister is also holding the portfolio of co-operation in the present Ministry and is therefore able to influence the work of the Department concerned and use its authority to weaken the influence of the petitioner on the public. To serve this end, the said Minister has purportedly influenced Shri G. K. Bhattacharya who was holding temporary charge of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to initiate some action to remove the petitioner from the various co-operative institutions within the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu beginning with the Goa, State Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Shri G. K. Bhattacharya acting as the respondent No. 1 being subordinate to the Minister of Co-operative has accordingly obliged the said Minister by taking various steps which he has taken as disclosed hereinafter. The petitioner says that the said respondent No. 1 has taken the steps as disclosed hereinafter for reasons extraneous to those contained in the said Act or the Rules made thereunder. In other word
