Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2187 (RAJ)

Naresh Dhakad v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-08-03

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are the chairman of the respective Cooperative Societies, being aggrieved with the action of the respondents of amending the Bye-laws of the Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies has proposed the amendment in the Bye- laws Nos.11 (2)(a) and 11(2)(b) of theGram Seva Sahakari Samiti and in the Bye-laws No.34 (2)(a) and 34 (2)(b) of the o'gn d'f'k cgqn~ns"kh; lgdkjh lfefr. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that amendment in the Bye-laws is done by the Registrar concerned without following the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 2001'). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to the provisions of Section 8 and 123 as well as Scheduled B of the Act of 2001 has argued that amendment in the Bye-laws is contrary to the above referred provisions of the Act of 2001. It is submitted that before amendment in the aforesaid Bye-laws, all members of the Cooperative Societies, loanee and non-loanee, were entitled to elect 11 members from the loanee category and one member from the non-loanee category, however, now as per the amendment in the Bye-laws, elections of the members of the managing committee are to be conducted ward-wise and for that purpose, 12 wards are to be constituted in each Co-operative Societies. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is to the effect that earlier, the members of the Co-operative Societies were having right to elect 11 members of the managing committee of the co-operative societies under loanee category and one member under non- 5. loanee category, but after formation of the wards, right to elect 11 members of the managing committee curtail to elect only one member of the managing committee in the category of loanee and non-loanee. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the State Government has no power under the provisions of Act of 2001 to change the manner of election of the members of the managing committee, the action of the respondent of amending the provisions of bye-laws is absolutely without jurisdiction. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the State Government has no power under the provisions of Act of 2001 to change the manner of election of the members of the managing committee, the action of the respondent of amending the provisions of bye-laws is absolutely without jurisdiction. 7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in SB Civil Writ Petition No.7465/2010 (Hari Ram Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected writ petitions. 8. It is also submitted that above referred decision has already been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.05.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, argued that the respondents may be directed to conduct the election of the managing committee of the co-operative societies as per the un-amended Bye-laws. 9. While opposing the writ petition, learned counsel for the Cooperative-societies has argued that the State Government has not committed any illegality in amending the Bye-laws of the Co- operative societies. It is argued that as per Section 8, 123 and Schedule B of the Act of 2001, the respondents are fully competent to hold elections of the managing committee of the Co- operative societies while formation of wards. It is also submitted that by amending the Bye-laws, right to elect the members of Co-operative societies has not been curtailed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that amendment in the Bye-laws is introduced with the intention to give proportional representation and, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that it is detriment to the interest of the society. 11. It is also submitted that the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the Act of 2001 has religiously been followed while amending the Bye-laws. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has also invited my attention towards the notification issued by the Rajasthan State Co-operative Election Authority dated 31.07.2022, whereby, the election programme for elections of all the members of the managing committee of the societies has already been notified. 13. Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that once the elections have been notified, it would not be appropriate to stay the election. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the matters requires consideration. 15. 13. Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that once the elections have been notified, it would not be appropriate to stay the election. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the matters requires consideration. 15. Hence, admit. 16. After taking into consideration the fact that election have already been notified by the Rajasthan State Co-operative Election Authority, it would not be appropriate to stay the said election. 17. However, the result of the election of the members of the managing committee of the respective co-operative societies shall remain subject to the final decision of this writ petition. Stay petition is also disposed of.