- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ahmednagar Zilla S.D.V & P. Sangh Ltd. And Another v. State Of Maharashtra And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, a specified cooperative society, convened a general body meeting on 31-08-1997 and resolved to amend its bye-laws by classifying member societies into three categories (Class ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’) based on the quantity of milk supplied over the previous three years. The Divisional Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nashik Division, approved these amendments on 24-10-1997, after which a voters’ list for election to the Managing Committee was prepared in accordance with the amended bye-laws.
The respondents filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Dairy), Worli, Mumbai, contending that the amendments were adopted without due notice to members. The Joint Registrar allowed the appeal, declaring the amendments illegal. A revision petition by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court challenging the appellate order, while the respondents filed a separate writ seeking inclusion of their names in the electoral roll prepared under the unamended bye-laws.
Both writ petitions were heard together. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition and allowed the respondents’, directing inclusion of their names in the voters’ list. The present appeals were filed by the society against that High Court judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing inclusion of the respondents’ names in the electoral roll at an intermediary stage of the election process.
- Whether the amendments to the society’s bye-laws, adopted on 31-08-1997, were valid when notice requirements under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and Rules were allegedly not fulfilled.
- If the amendments were invalid, whether the voters’ list prepared on their basis also stood vitiated.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The preparation of the voters’ list is merely an intermediary stage in the election process; therefore, any challenge should be raised only in an election petition after elections are completed.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509, which held that High Courts should not interfere with the voters’ list at this stage.
The opinion does not detail the respondents’ specific legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509 | Preparation of the voters’ list is an intermediary stage; irregularities should be challenged after the election via an election petition, not through pre-election writ intervention. | The Court distinguished the precedent, observing that it applies where the voters’ list is prepared under valid rules but contains procedural irregularities. Here, the list was founded on bye-laws that were themselves illegally amended; therefore, the principle did not bar High Court intervention. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Court noted that both the appellate and revisional authorities had found the bye-law amendments invalid because mandatory notice requirements were not satisfied. This constituted a determination of a jurisdictional fact, and the High Court rightly refused to term that finding “perverse.”
2. Rule 81 of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971 sets out grounds on which an election can be declared void; it does not empower the Election Tribunal to examine the validity of bye-laws. Thus, the respondents had no alternative remedy other than approaching the Appellate Authority and, subsequently, the High Court.
3. The Court distinguished the Sant Sadguru precedent, emphasizing that while procedural irregularities in a voters’ list must await post-election challenge, a voters’ list prepared on the basis of non-existent (illegally amended) rules is fundamentally invalid. Therefore, pre-election judicial intervention was justified.
4. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the amendments were made in compliance with statutory requirements. Consequently, once the amendments fell, the voters’ list derived from them also collapsed.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Dismissed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment and ordered the Collector, Ahmednagar, to conduct fresh elections to the Board of Directors within four months, using the voters’ list prepared under the unamended bye-laws. The decision ensures that elections proceed on the basis of legally valid bye-laws but sets no new precedent beyond reinforcing that judicial review is available when foundational legal requirements for an electoral process are absent.
Order
1. The appellant herein is a specified society. On 31-8-1997, the general body meeting was held wherein it was proposed to amend the bye-laws. It was resolved in the said general body meeting that the societies supplying milk to the extent of 200 litres per day for 300 days for the last three years will be categorized as Class ‘A’ societies. It was also resolved that the societies supplying more than 50 litres of milk daily for 300 days for the last three years will be categorized as Class ‘B’ societies and the societies supplying less than 50 litres of milk daily for 300 days for the last three years will be categorized as Class ‘C’ grade societies and which would be called as nominal members. On 24-10-1997, the Divisional Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik accorded his approval to the amendment of the aforesaid bye-laws. It is not disputed that consequent upon the amendment in the bye-laws the voters' list was prepared for holding election for constituting the Managing Committee of the Society. In the meanwhile, the respondents herein filed an appeal against the amendment of the bye-laws to the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Dairy), Worli, Mumbai who allowed the appeal, holding the amendment of the bye-laws to be illegal inasmuch as the same was issued without giving notice to the members. A revision petition was filed against the appellate order which was also dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant took the matter to the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition has also been dismissed.
2. It is relevant to mention here that the respondents also filed a petition under Article 226 for direction to the Returning Officer for inclusion of their names in the electoral roll in view of the fact that the amendment in the bye-laws was struck down by the Appellate Authority. Both the writ petitions filed by the appellant and respondents were heard together. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed whereas the appeal preferred by the respondents herein was allowed and a direction was issued to the authority for inclusion of their names in the electoral roll. It is against the said judgment of the High Court the appellant is before us.
3. The learned counsel urged that the High Court ought not to have issued a direction for inclusion of the names of the respondents in the electoral roll in view of the fact that the preparation of the electoral roll is an intermediary stage in the process of the election and as such the High Court committed an error of jurisdiction. The learned counsel, in support, relied upon the decision of this Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 8 SCC 509. In the said case it was held that the preparation of the voters' list is an intermediary stage in the process of election of the Managing Committee and if there was breach of the rule in the preparation of the voters' list, it could be called in question in an election petition after the election is over and the High Court is not required to interfere in the matter at this stage.
4. In Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (2001) 8 SCC 509 this Court made the aforementioned observations keeping in view the fact therein that the voters' list was prepared in terms of the extant rules but certain irregularities were committed therein, but where the voters' list has been prepared on the basis of non-existent rules the same would be illegal.
5. In the present case, what we find is that illegal amendment of the bye-laws was challenged on the basis of which the electoral roll was prepared. Under Section 165 of the Act, the State Government has framed rules under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971. Rule 81 provides for the ground for declaring the elections to be void. A perusal of Rule 81 shows that the validity of the bye-law cannot be gone into by the Tribunal. In view of the fact that the respondents had no other remedy except to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority and once it was held that the amendment of the bye-laws was not in conformity with the law the electoral roll prepared on the basis would fall down.
6. The question as to whether the High Court ought to have entertained the writ petition filed by the respondent or not takes a back seat in the instant case as it was for the appellants herein to show that the amendments in the bye-laws have been carried out in accordance with law. Both the Appellate Authority as also the revisional authority have pointed out that conditions precedent for amending the bye-laws had not been complied with. Such a finding on jurisdictional fact has been held by the High Court as not “perverse” warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Before us also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has failed to show as to why this Court should take a different view. We, therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
7. We, however, direct the Collector, Ahmednagar, to forthwith conduct fresh election of the Board of Directors to the appellant Society and complete the same as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months from today on the basis of the unamended bye-laws.
8. No costs.
Alert