2009 jk fu 9 2009 RN 9
¼mPp U;k;ky;½ (HIGH COURT)
U;k- ,-ds- feJk rFkk U;k- jktsaæ esuu
A.K. Mishra and Rajendra Menon, JJ.
jke flag fo- e-ç- jkT; rFkk vU;
Ram Singh v. State of M.P. and others
fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 3900&3998 4000 rFkk 15429 lu~ 20071/4tcyiqj1/2(
fu.khZr fnukad 16-4-2008
Writ Petition No. 3900, 3998, 4000 and 15429 of 2007 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 16.4.2008.
¼2½ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e] 1960 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 19 ¼2&d½ rFkk 10 && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 14 && 1999 esa ;Fkk izfrLFkkfir vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 ¼2&d½ ds v/khu mica/k && foHksndkjh ugha gS D;ksafd /kkjk 10 esa ifjHkkf"kr vU; lkslkbfV;ksa dks ykxw gksuk ugha cuk;k gS&& mica/k lalk/ku rFkk miHkksDrk lkslkbfV;ksa dks ykxw gksus ds fy, fojfpr fd, x, gSa && ;g izorZu dks {ks=] d`R; rFkk m|s"; dks fopkj esa ys dj fd;k x;k gSA ¼ iSjk 8
¼3½ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e] 1960 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 64 && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && ernkrk lwph esa lnL; dh ik=rk && rF; dk fookfnr iz‘u gksus ls fjV ;kfpdk esa fofuf‘pr ugha fd;k tk ldrk && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 64 ds v/khu fookn Qkby djus ds mipkj miyC/k gSA 2002 jk fu 99] 1993 jk fu 18] 1996 jk fu 86] 1996 jk fu 60 rFkk 1996 jk fu 13 voyafcrA ¼ iSjk 11
(1) Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (M.P.) -- S. 19 (2-A) -Constitution of India -- Arts. 19 (1) (c) and 14 -- S. 19 (2-A) of the Act as substituted in 1999 -- cannot be said to be suffering with vice of arbitrariness -- it has not taken any right conferred under Art. 19 (1) (c) or Art. 14 of the Constitution. 1971 SC 966 and AIR 1980 SC 1612 distinguished. [Para 9
(2) Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (M.P.) -- S. 19 (2-A) and 10-Art. 14 -- provisions under S. 19 (2-A) of the Act as substituted in 1999 -- are not discriminatory because not made applicable to other societies defined in S. 10 -- provisions have been made applicable to resource and consumer societies -- it has been done considering operational area, function and object. [Para 10
(3) Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (M.P.) -- S. 64 -- Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- eligibility of member in the voter list -- being disputed question of fact cannot be decided in writ petition -- remedy lies to file dispute under S. 64 of the Act. 2002 RN 245, 1998 RN 178, 1998 RN .121, AIR 1976 MP 156, 1989 RN 99,1993 RN 18, 1996 RN 86,1996 RN 60 and 1996 RN 13 relied on. [Para 11
Mishra, J. --1. In these petitions the petitioners have assailed vires of section 19 (2-A) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to the 'Act') being violative of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.
2. Facts are being referred from W.P. No. 3900/2007. Petitioner is a member of Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Soikala, district Sheopur. It is submitted that for the purpose of election the voter list prepared by the Manager of the Society was never submitted to the committee of the society for approval. Annual General Meeting was also not convened by the Manager. Voter List (P-4) was handed over to the Election Officer on 9.1.2007. No information regarding disqualification was sent to any of the member of the society, therefore, none of the members in the voter list were disqualified. Several objections (P5) were preferred by the petitioner being Chairman of the Society, with respect to correctness of the voters list inter alia contending that the voter list was not approved by the Board. 200 new persons were entered in the voter list whereas they were not the members of the society. 140 persons were declared defaulter, but, no intimation regarding their disqualification were served as per provision of Rule 23(3)(b) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). As such they could not be treated as disqualified. Certain members were not borrowing members, but, they were marked as borrowing members so that they could participate in the election. Vires of section 19(2-A) of the Act has been assailed on the ground that the aforesaid provision of the Act infringes the fundamental rights of founder members and pre-existing members of the societies guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 19(1)(c). Section 19(2-A) provides for compulsory membership to be given to those persons who are strangers and were not to be inducted by the society, they have to be inducted as member of the society by operation of the provision. As per provision contained in section 49(8)(i) of the Act the election of the society is required to be conducted by the outgoing committee. The Registrar has declared the fom1al election programme (P-7) for the societies on 24.1.2006 and has fixed the date 12.2.2007 for special General Meeting for conducting the election. Election programme (P-8) was prepared. It was for the society to decide the date of Annual General Meeting. Notice issued for convening the Annual General Meeting dated 24.1.2007 was without authority. The committee was competent to fix the date and call the meeting as per bye-laws (P-10). As per the programme 31.1.2007 was the date of filing of nomination papers. As per the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 Rule 41(2)(b) it should not be less than 7 days from the date of Annual General Meeting. The scrutiny of nomination was to take place on 2.2.2007, withdrawal date was 3.2.2007. Annual General Meeting was to be held on 12.2.2007, counting on the same day after one hour of the election. It is submitted that the date of Annual General Meeting should have been 6.2.2007 not 12.2.2007 as per Rule 41 (2)(b) of the Rules.
3. In the return filed by the respondents No.1 to 3 it is contended that 200 new members were inducted in the society during the tenure of the Chairman in accordance with the provisions of bye-laws of the society. As per the bye-law of the society, any person who is resident within the territorial jurisdiction of the society can be made a member of the society after purchasing at least one share issued by the society along with entry fee as prescribed by the society. The name of such a member, who takes share of the society and deposits entry fee is entered in the membership register of the society and such entries approved in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Committee as per bye-laws (R-1). During the tenure of the petitioner as Chairman, as many as 200 new persons were entered into m
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.