Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 193 (MAN)

Armabam Prakash Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-10-10

AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mrs. G. Pushpa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A. Vashum, learned GA appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. 2. The present writ petition had been filed assailing the Notification dated 29.05.2022 notifying the schedule for election of the Board of Directors and Office Bearers of the Manipur Merchant's Cooperative Association Ltd. (herein after referred to as MMCA for short) as well as the bonafide member list of the MMCA and with a prayer for passing and setting aside the impugned notification and the impugned list of members of the MMCA. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, his father namely, Shri Arambam Manichouba Singh was a member and shareholder of the MMCA during his lifetime. The father of the petitioner expired on 12.06.2021 and consequent upon the expiry of his father, the petitioner being a nominee of his father became a bonafide member of the MMCA by invoking the provisions of the Bye-Law of the MMCA. 4. On expiry of the term of the Board Members of the MMCA, the Chairman, MMCA issued a notice dated 20.05.2022 for holding an Annual General Body Meeting of MMCA on 05.06.2022 at 1:30 pm at the Office premises of MMCA, Paona Bazar to transact the following businesses:- 1. Confirmation of the minutes of the last Annual General Body Meeting dated 28.11.2021; 2. Report of the Secretary; 3. Considering and adoption of the Annual Report, Audit Report and Audited Statement of Accounts Balance Sheet of MMCA Ltd. for the year 2021-2022; 4. Amendment of Bye-Laws/Addition of Bye laws; 5. Trading business; 6. Construction; 7. Nominees; 8. Misc; 9. Election of New Board of Directors. 5. According to the petitioner, being a member and intending candidate, he was planning to participate in the said meeting to be held on 05.06.2022, however, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the Returning Officer without informing the petitioner and many other members of the MMCA, issued the impugned Notification dated 29.05.2022 notifying the schedule for election of the Board of Directors and Office Bearers of the MMCA. When the petitioner enquire as to the reason for the abrupt manner for holding the said election, the Secretary, MMCA informed the petitioner that he is not a bonafide member of the MMCA. When the petitioner enquire as to the reason for the abrupt manner for holding the said election, the Secretary, MMCA informed the petitioner that he is not a bonafide member of the MMCA. Having being aggrieve, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for redressing his grievances. 6. Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 raised preliminary objections about the maintainability of the present writ petition on the following grounds:- (a) The petitioner is not a member of the MMCA and accordingly, he has no locus standi to challenge either the process for election of the Board of Directors and Office Bearers of the MMCA or the list of the members of the MMCA. (b) As there is an alternative and effective statutory remedy under Section 91 of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 (herein after referred to as the said Act for short) for deciding the issues raised in the present writ petition, the present writ petition is not maintainable. (c) The petitioner filed the present writ petition without disclosing the material facts and approach this Court without a clean hand and accordingly, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 7. In connection with the first ground, it has been submitted by Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 that the father of the petitioner was a member and share holder of the MMCA during his lifetime and he expired on 12.06.2021. After the death of the petitioner's father, the process for transferring the membership of the deceased father to his nominee i.e., the present petitioner, was initiated and in the Annual General Body Meeting of the MMCA held on 28.11.2021, a resolution was taken for admitting 5 (five) nominees of the former members of the MMCA, including the present petitioner. Thereafter, the proceedings of the Annual General Board Meeting was submitted to the concerned officials of the Cooperative Department and the District Co-operative officer, Imphal West, under his letter dated 21.12.2021 addressed to the Chairman/Secretary of the MMCA intimated that the resolution for admission of nominees should be passed in the next Board of Directors meeting and to submit in the prescribed format. 8. It has been submitted by Mr. 8. It has been submitted by Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel that under Bye-law number 5 of the Bye-laws of the MMCA, it is provided that a nominee of a deceased members may become a member if he is admitted by the Board of Directors provided he is qualified under the By-laws to become a member. The provisions of the said By-law number 5 is reproduced herein for ready reference:- '5. Members of the association shall be those to become members as recommended by board and approved by the General Body Meeting after fulfilling all the terms and conditions for being members. The association shall not have more that 200 (two- hundred) members without the sanction of the Registrar. The nominee of a deceased members may become a member if he is admitted by the Board of Directors provided he is qualified under the bylaws to become a member.' 9. It has been submitted by Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel that no meeting of the Board of Directors of the MMCA had been held after the expiry of the petitioner's father and the petitioner is not yet admitted as a member of the MMCA by the Board of Directors of the MMCA and accordingly, the petitioner is not yet a member of the MMCA till date and as such, he has no locus standi to challenge the process for election of the Board of Directors and Office Bearers of the MMCA. 10. In connection with the second ground, it has been submitted by Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel that under Section 91 of the said Act, it is, inter alia, provided that any dispute touching the constitution, election of Office Bearers shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute to the Registrar, if both the parties thereto are a member, past member or a person claiming through a member or past member of the Society. Under sub section 91 (3) of the said act, it is further provided that no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub section 1 of section 91 of the said act. The provisions of Section 91 of the said act is reproduced herein for ready reference:- '91. Under sub section 91 (3) of the said act, it is further provided that no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub section 1 of section 91 of the said act. The provisions of Section 91 of the said act is reproduced herein for ready reference:- '91. Dispute - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, election of the office bearers, conduct of general meetings, management of business of a society, other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a society or its committee against the paid servant of the society or of the liquidator of a society, shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute, or by a federal society to which the society is affiliated, or by a creditor of the society, to the Registrar, if both the parties thereto are one or other of the following, namely: (a) A society, its committee, any past committee any past or present officer, any past or present agant or deceased servant of the society, or the liquidator of the society; (b) A member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or a deceased member of a society or a society which is a member of the society; (c) A person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society, or with whom the society has or had transactions under the provisions of Section 43, and any person claiming through such a person; (d) A surety of a member, past member or a deceased member , or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society under Section 45 , whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society; (e) Any other society, or the liquidator of such a society. (2) When any question arises whether for the purposes of the forgoing sub-section, a matter referred to for decision is a dispute or not, the question shall be considered by the Registrar whose decision shall be final. (3) Save as otherwise provided under sub-section (3) of Section 93, no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub-section (1).' 11. (3) Save as otherwise provided under sub-section (3) of Section 93, no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub-section (1).' 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 vehemently submitted that there is an alternative and effective statutory remedies under Section 91 of the said act for deciding the issue raised in the present writ petition and as the petitioner approached this Court directly without exhausting such alternative and effective statutory remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same deserves to be rejected outright. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in (2014)1 SCC 603 wherein, it has been held as under :- '11. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 (See State of U.P v. Mohd. Nooh, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd, v. State of Orissa, Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And State of H.P v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.). '15. Nooh, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd, v. State of Orissa, Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And State of H.P v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.). '15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titaghur Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.' 12. In connection with the third ground, it has been submitted by Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel that the petitioner did not approach this Court with a clean hand and clean mind inasmuch as, he neither discloses the fact that he is still not a member of the MMCA nor did he enclosed in his writ petition the complete copy of the Notification dated 29.02.2022 issued by the Returning Officer notifying the bonafide member list/defaulter member list/suspended list and list of nominees for any objection and rectification. Had the petitioner enclosed the complete copy of the said notification issued by the Returning Officer, it would have clearly shown that the name of the petitioner is included in the said list of nominees of the MMCA. The petitioner deliberately concealed this fact to mislead this Court in order to obtain undue and undeserved reliefs from this Court. Learned counsel submitted that on this ground along the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed outright. 13. Mrs. The petitioner deliberately concealed this fact to mislead this Court in order to obtain undue and undeserved reliefs from this Court. Learned counsel submitted that on this ground along the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed outright. 13. Mrs. G. Pushpa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already become a bonafide member of the MMCA and this factum is clearly supported by the following documents:- '(i) Annual General Body Meeting Notice dated 11.11.2021 notifying all the bonafide members of the MMCA that an Annual General Body Meeting of the association will be held on 28.11.2021 at 1:00 pm at the office premises of MMCA Ltd. Paona Bazar. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, a copy of the said notice was endorsed to the petitioner as the petitioner was a bonafide member of the said association. (ii) Memorandum dated 02.12.2021 issued by the Secretary, MMCA thereby constituted two sub committees to assist in the administration of MMCA Ltd. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was included as one of the member of the 'Leimakhong Land Sub Committee' as the petitioner was a member of the MMCA. (iii) The Annual General Board Meeting Notice dated 20.05.2022 issued by the Chairman, MMCA thereby notifying to all the share holders/ members that the Annual General Board Meeting of the MMCA will be held on 05.06.2022 at 1:00 pm at the office premises of MMCA Ltd., Paona Bazar. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a copy of the said meeting notice was endorsed to the petitioner as the petitioner is a member of the MMCA. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the aforementioned documents clearly show the factum that the petitioner is a bonafide member of the MMCA and accordingly, submitted that the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the process for election of the Board of Directors and Office Bearers of the MMCA and the list of members of the MMCA. 14. As far as the second ground and third ground raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 & 5 is concerned, no arguments had been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. 14. As far as the second ground and third ground raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 & 5 is concerned, no arguments had been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she will advance her arguments on merit of the case at the time of final hearing of the present writ petition. 15. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and the learned counsel for the petitioner and on careful consideration of the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Ajoy Pebam about the maintainability of the present wit petition, this Court is of the considered view that the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 has considerable force and merit. 16. Bye-law No. 5 of the Bye-laws of MMCA clearly mandates that a nominee of a deceased member will become a member of the association if he is admitted by the Board of Directors of the said association provided that he is qualified under the bye-laws to become a member. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner is a nominee of a former member of MMCA and that even though a resolution had already been passed in the Annual General Body Meeting of MMCA held on 28.11.2021 for his admission as member along with four other nominees, there is nothing on record to show that the Board of Directors of MMCA had admitted the petitioner as a member of the association. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 had been able to show clearly that the petitioner has not yet become a member of the said association. In my considered view, the documents relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to support her arguments that the petitioner had already become a member of the MMCA cannot be construed as evidence fulfilling the conditions provided under byelaw No. 5 of the Bye-laws of MMCA for becoming a member of the association. In my considered view, the documents relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to support her arguments that the petitioner had already become a member of the MMCA cannot be construed as evidence fulfilling the conditions provided under byelaw No. 5 of the Bye-laws of MMCA for becoming a member of the association. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has not become a member of the MMCA and accordingly, he has no locus standi to assail the process for election of the Board of Directors and Office Bearers of the MMCA. 17. This Court also found considerable force and merit in the two other preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and accordingly, this Court did not find any reason for proceeding further and considering the merits of the writ petition. In the result, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, parties are to bear their own cost. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.