. v. State of Rajasthan — 1987 DIGILAW 445 (RAJ)

Judgment I.S. Israni, J.-The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging two orders dt, 25th July, 1986 (Annexures 1 and 2), wherein it exempted the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter called as “the Act”) and ordered that the date fixed by the Election Officer shall be deemed to be the general meeting of a co-operative society (Annex. 1) and by another order of the same date (Annex. 2) exempted application of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) and thus requirement of quorum for holding a meeting was also exempted. Shri S. K. Mathur, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Khairtha was appointed Election Officer by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur vide order dt. 13-4-87 for conducting elections of the Members of the Committee (Board of Directors) and office-bearers of Sawai Madhopur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Sawaimadhopur. The said Election Officer thereupon issued election notice (Annex. 3) giving out details of the programme for conducting elections viz. publishing provisional voters list, for inviting objections and hearing the same, publishing the final voters list, receiving nominations, scrutiny and withdrawals from candidature, poll if necessary and thereafter election of officebearers. S ince members of the said Bank are Co-operative Societies they are represented by delegates appointed by them. 2. The petitioner, it is stated, is a member of Mandwar Kriya Vikraya Samiti Ltd. (hereinafter called ‘Mandawar Samiti’) and is also one of its elected directors. This Society is a member of the aforesaid Bank and vide its resolution No. 2 dt. 18-4-1987, the petitioner was appointed as its delegate for abovementioned elections of the Bank (Annexure 4). In the provisional list of voters published by the Election Officer relating to the Kriya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Constituency, the name of the petitioner was included as delegate of the Mandawar Samiti. It is further stated in the petition that no objection was raised against the entry of the petitioner’s name in the provisional list of voters during the period meant for raising objections or even thereafter. It is further stated that in the final list of voters issued on 1-5-1987, his name does not appear and instead name of one Brijesh Mahajan (Chaudhary) has been shown with respect to Mandawar Samiti. 3. Thecontention of Mr. It is further stated that in the final list of voters issued on 1-5-1987, his name does not appear and instead name of one Brijesh Mahajan (Chaudhary) has been shown with respect to Mandawar Samiti. 3. Thecontention of Mr. B.L. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act provides that the elections are to be held in the Annual General Meeting which is to be called by the Society. Section 33 of the Act provides that the Committee (Board of Directors) has to be constituted by the general body of the society as provided by the bye-laws. Certain mandatory functions for Annual General Meeting are provided in Sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) and penalties for default in calling the Annual General Meeting within the prescribed time in Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 30 of the Act. In the Annual General Meeting, the members get an opportunity to discuss the affairs of the Society. It is therefore, contended by the learned Counsel that in this view of the matter both the orders of the Government dt. 25-7-86 are invalid and void. Thus, Section 139 of the Act has not been pressed in service for the purpose of advancing the objects of the Act and in the interests of the Society. Both the abovementioned orders do not advance the objects of the co-operative principles on the basis of which various co-operative societies work in the whole State of Rajasthan. 4. It is further contended that if the above mentioned orders of the Govt. dt. 25-7-86 are implemented the society shall loose its corporate character, as no resolution can be passed at such a meeting as would otherwise be done by the General Body under Section 33 of the Act, even though application of Section 33 of the Act has not been exempted. It is, therefore, contended that the two Government orders are violative of Article 19(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution. 5. Our attention has been drawn to the case of Registrar of Co-operative Societies vs. K. Kunjabumu, AIR 1980 SC 350 . It is, therefore, contended that the two Government orders are violative of Article 19(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution. 5. Our attention has been drawn to the case of Registrar of Co-operative Societies vs. K. Kunjabumu, AIR 1980 SC 350 . In this case it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering S. 60 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act that the power given to the Government under Section 60 of the Act is to be exercised so as to advance the policy and objects of the Act, according to the guidelines as may be gleaned from the preamble and other provisions are clear. In the case of Madhawa Rao vs. Surya Rao, AIR 1954 Mad 193 , it was observed while considering the provisions of Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932, that the Co-operative Act speaks oniy through its members and expresses its will by the machinery provided under the Act and the bye-laws. It was further observed that a dispute relating to election is undoubtedly a dispute concerning or relating to the business of the society. 6. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and we do not find any force in the same. Section 30(1) of the Act reads as under “30. Annual general meeting :-(1) Every Co-operative Society shall within the time prescribed therefor, call an annual general meeting for the purpose of .(a) approval of the programme of the activities of the society prepared by the committee for the ensuing year; .(b) election, if any, in the prescribed manner of the members of the committee other than nominated members .(c) consideration of the audit report and the annual report; .(d) disposal of the net profits; and (e) consideration of any other matter which may be brought forward in accordance with the bye-laws. Provided that if no such meeting is called within the time aforesaid, the Registrar or any person authorised by him may call such meeting in the manner prescribed, and that meeting shall be deemed to be a general meeting fully called by the society: Provided further that the Registrar may order that the expenditure incurred in calling such a meeting under the foregoing proviso shall be paid out of the funds of the society or by such person or persons who, in the opinion of the Registrar, were responsible for the refusal or failure to convene the general meeting.” Thus it is clear from a bare reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 30 that elections, if any, have to be held in the prescribed manner of the members of the committee other than the nominated members. Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act provides that at every annual meeting of the society, the committee shall lay down before the society a balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year in the manner prescribed by the Registrar by general or special orders for any class or classes of the society. Rule 30 of the Rules is regarding the general meeting and the procedure to be adopted for convening the same. Rule 32 of the Rules provides for election of members of the committee by the general body. Sub-rule (2) of this rule lays down that elections shall be held at the general meeting of the society of which not less than 7 days clear notice shall be given to the members. The Election Officer shall commence and conduct the election “provided that at the commencement of the meeting there shall be quorum specified in the Rules or bye-laws. This has also been exempted by the order dt. 25-7-86 (Annexure 2). It has been stated in the order dated 25-7-86(Arinex. 1) that the State Govt. has decided to get the elections of various co-operative bodies held at an early date. This has also been exempted by the order dt. 25-7-86 (Annexure 2). It has been stated in the order dated 25-7-86(Arinex. 1) that the State Govt. has decided to get the elections of various co-operative bodies held at an early date. It is further stated that in exercise of the powers under Section 139 of the Act, the State Government while exempting the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, empowers the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to authorise the members of various co-operative societies to hold the elections on such date, time and place for the purpose of casting votes and such voting shall be deemed to be the general meeting of such society for the purpose of holding the elections. The order Annexure 2 dt. 25-7-86 states that with a view to get the elections of the Co-operative bodies at an early date, the State Government in exercise of power under Rule 110 of the Rules grants exemption from the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 of the Rules regarding quorum for the elections to be held for the year 1986-87 in various co-operative bodies and authorises the election officer to call the members of any co-operative societies/bodies on the fixed date, time and place for casting their votes and such voting shall be deemed to be the general meeting for the purpose of holding elections. Thereafter, the election officer issued election notice (Annex. 3) giving in details the date, time and place and other necessary election programme in the same including the preparation of provisional list of voters, objections raised against the same and publishing of final list of voters etc. 7. This clearly indicates that the State Government has exercised its powers under Section 139 of the Act only with a view to hold early elections of various co-operative bodies: in the State of Rajasthan and it cannot be said that this has not been done with a view to advance the objects for which the Act has been enacted The contention of the learned Counsel is that such a. meeting where only votes are cast for the purposes of election, cannot be said to be a meeting of general body as provided under Section 30 of the Act. As already, stated the State Government has exempted the application of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act as, also Sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 of the Rules and therefore, the provisions are not applicable to the election meetings held under Annexure 3. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders dt. 25th July, 1986 (Annexures 1 and 2) as also in election notice marked Annexure-3. The aforesaid two orders of the State Government, therefore, cannot be said to be violative of Article 19(1) (a), (b) & (c) of the Constitution. 8. The dispute of the petitioner is in fact an election dispute. Any dispute that arises while preparations of elections are underway is covered by the provisions of Section 75 of the Act. The dispute raised by the petitioner is regarding non-inclusion of his name in the final list of voters published by the respondent 3, even though his name was included in the provisional list of voters. The preparation of the list of voters is a part of the elector/ process and, therefore a dispute relating to the legality of the list of voters is evidently a dispute arising in connection with the election of the members of the managing committee. Section 75 of the Act provides the disputes which may be referred to the arbitration. Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 75 of the Act provides that any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society is also to be referred for arbitration under the provisions of Section 75 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner can also resort to the provisions of Section 75 of the Act, as his dispute arises in connection with the elections of the members of managing committee. A similar matter came up before this Court in the case of Bharat Lal Dugal vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Civil Writ Petition No. 1838 of 1986 which was decided on April 14, 1987. This was also a case regarding preparation of list of voters and same view was taken in this case also. 9. This, therefore, is a dispute arising in connection with the election of the members of the managing committee and the remedy lies under Section 75 of the Act, which is an efficacious remedy for decision of the dispute raised in this writ petition. 10. 9. This, therefore, is a dispute arising in connection with the election of the members of the managing committee and the remedy lies under Section 75 of the Act, which is an efficacious remedy for decision of the dispute raised in this writ petition. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine.