The election eligibility of cooperative society directors hinges on actual dividend distribution meeting statutory requirements, with compliance assessed by General Body resolutions.

JUDGMENT

1. A common question arises in these Writ Petitions concerning the interpretation of bye-law 30 A(16) of the Bye-laws pertaining to the Respondent no.3-Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and in that context, the correctness or otherwise of the impugned Judgments and Orders passed by the Co-operative Tribunal of Goa.

2. Writ Petition no. 1242 of 2021, is filed by Ramchandra Govind Mule, challenging the impugned order passed by the Tribunal upholding the rejection of his nomination papers for contesting in the elections to the board of Directors of the Respondent no.3-Society.

3. Writ Petition No. 1219 of 2021 is filed by Krishna Vasudev Kudnekar and Upasso Putu Gaonkar, challenging the same impugned Judgment and Order of the Tribunal to the extent that their election as Directors of the Respondent no.3-Society stood quashed and set aside on the basis that their nomination papers were wrongly accepted by the Respondent no.2-Returning Officer.

4. Writ Petition No. 2611 of 2021, is filed by Premanand Chawdikar, to challenge Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the Tribunal, whereby his election as Member of Board of Directors of the Respondent no.3-Society has been set aside and it has been declared that the rejection of nomination papers of the Respondent no.4 in the said Writ Petition was illegal. It is significant that the Tribunal in the said Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2021, has taken a view on the same bye-law, diametrically opposite to the view adopted by the Tribunal in the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2021, which is the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition nos. 1219 of 2021 and 1242 of 2021. Thus, the decision in the Writ Petitions depends upon the interpretation of bye-law 30 A(16) of the aforesaid Bye-laws of Respondent no.3-Society.

5. Election program for electing members for the Board of Directors of the Respondent no.3-Society was declared. The scrutiny of nomination forms was to take place on 08.08.2019, to be completed by 10.08.2019 and on 14.08.2019, the final list of the contesting candidates was to be published. The Respondent no.1- Returning Officer scrutinized the nomination papers and passed an order on 10.08.2019, rejecting the nomination papers of Petitioner-Ramchandra Mule (Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1242 of 2021) on the ground that he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria as per bye-law 30 A(16) of the aforesaid Bye-laws and held that the nomination papers of Respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 were accepted since they fulfilled all the eligibility conditions as per the Bye-laws. As a consequence of the order passed by the Returning Officer, in the category in which the Petitioner and the aforesaid Respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 were contesting elections, it was found that only the aforesaid Respondents were eligible candidates in the field and accordingly they stood elected unopposed.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Respondent no.1- Returning Officer and the consequent declaration of Respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 as elected in the concerned category as members of the Board of Directors of Respondent no.3-Society, the