SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A.V. Chandrachud, J
Manohar v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Writ Petition No. 1418 of 1981



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Deshpande
For the Respondents: Mr. Desai

The restriction on designated officers serving beyond six years under Section 73-A(5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is constitutionally valid as it promotes democratic governance and does not violate fundamental rights.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 73-A(5) - Challenge to the validity of sub-section pertaining to term limits of designated officers - Petitioner's eligibility to hold office restricted after six years, violating fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution - Court held the provision valid, emphasizing voluntary nature of society registration and reasoning that restrictions promote democratic governance in co-operative societies. (Paras 1, 3, 27)

(B) Fundamental Rights - Right to form associations - Article 19(1)(c) - Court ruled that registration of society is voluntary and acceptance of statutory provisions does not infringe member rights. (Paras 14, 27)

(C) Constitutional Validity - Court reinforced that reasonable restrictions may be imposed under Article 19(4) in interest of public morality. (Paras 22, 27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Honorary Secretary of a housing society, opposed the application of term limits under Section 73-A(5) after completing six years in office.

Findings of Court:
The court found the statutory limitation promotes democracy and prevents concentration of power in co-operative societies, thus upholding the provision.

Issues: The main issues included whether the term limits violated the fundamental rights of the members and the necessity of such provisions in co-operative legislation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the six-year limitation is a reasonable restriction aimed at ensuring fair governance and preventing monopolization of office within co-operative societies, not infringing on rights to association.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to legal provision's validity (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. violation of constitutional rights argued (Para 6 , 7 , 15 , 17 , 21)
3. overview of cooperative societies regulation (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 22)
4. impugned provision's implications on rights (Para 13 , 16 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 26)
5. final ruling and order of dismissal (Para 27 , 28)

1. In this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution the validity of sub-section (5) of S.73 - A of the Maharashtra Co - operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) has been called in question.

2. S.73 - A of the Act was inserted in the Act by the Maharashtra Co - operative Societies (Second Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act No. XXVII of 1969), which came into force on July 1, 1971. Sub-section (5) of S.73 - A runs as under
"(5) No person shall be, or shall continue to be a designated officer of any society of any of the categories referred to in sub-section (2) for a consecutive period of more than six years, and at the expiration of that period any such person shall cease to be a designated officer of that society, and shall not be eligible for being re - elected or reappointed as a designated officer, until a period of three years has elapsed after the expiry of the aforesaid period of six years. Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section -
(a) in calculating the consecutive period of six years in office, any period for which the person concerned may have been such officer, before the commencement of the Maharashtra Co - operative Societies (Second Amendment) Act, 1969, shall be ignored;
(b) if any parson resigns his office as a designated officer at any time within twelve months of the date on which the consecutive period of six years would, but for his resignation, have been completed, he shall be deemed to have completed the period of six years on his resignation."



3. The facts which had led to the challenge of this provision are not in dispute. The petitioner is a member of the Vidarbha premier Co - operative Housing Society Limited, which is a society registered under the Act. The petitioner is an Honorary Secretary of the society. Initially he was co - opted as the Honorary Secretary on July 1, 1977. Prior to that on Nov. 8, 1970 he was elected as a Member of the Managing Committee. He was re - elected as a member of the Managing Committee on December 30, 1973 and as soon as there was a vacancy in the office of the Honorary Secretary of the society, on July 1, 1977, he came to be co - opted as the Honorary Secretary of the society. As per Bye - law No. 34 of the Bye - laws of the Society, he was entitled to remain in the office for a period of five years. On the expiry of his term, fresh elections were held on November 28, 1982, wherein he was elected as a Honorary Secretary, which post he could hold for a further period of five years as per Bye - law No. 34. However, as a result of sub-section (5) of S.73 - A, he has incurred a disability to hold office on his completing his total tenure of six years on July 1. 1983.

4. Now sub-section (5) of S.73 - A of the Act refers to the disability incurred by a designated officer. Under sub-section (1) of S.73 - A, 'a designated officer' means the Chairman and the President, and includes any other officer of the society as may be declared by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be a designated officer, but does not include any officer appointed or nominated by the State Government or by the Registrar. "Officer" has been defined in S.2 (2) of the Act. According to this definition, 'Officer' means a person elected or appointed by a society to any office of such society according to its Bye - laws and includes a Chairman, Vice - Chairman. President, Vice - President, Managing Director, Manager, Secretary, Treasurer, Member of the Committee and any other person elected or appointed under this Act, the rules or the bye - laws, to give directions in regard to






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top