- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Veena Kumari Tandon v. Neelam Bhalla And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal concerns the Merry Niketan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., a group housing cooperative society in which several members of the same families were admitted as individual members and allotted separate flats. A dispute arose during preparation of the voters’ list for society elections. The Managing Committee first published a provisional list of 35 voters on 22-1-2004, but later adopted a resolution—relying on Bye-laws 8(a), 9(a) and 9(b)—that implemented a “one family one vote” rule. A final list excluding additional family members was issued, leading to rejection of certain nomination forms.
Aggrieved members (Respondents 1, 3-5 and 7-11) appealed under Section 152-A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1960 (“the 1960 Act”); the Deputy Registrar dismissed the appeals on 17-3-2004. A writ petition to the Bombay High Court followed. Pending the writ, the High Court ordered that votes of excluded members be kept in sealed cover. Ultimately, by judgment dated 30-4-2004, the High Court held that every admitted member—irrespective of family relationship—was entitled to one vote. The Society appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1960 mandates “one member one vote” for every admitted member, notwithstanding any contrary provision in the Society’s Bye-laws.
- Whether the Society’s Bye-laws, which attempt to introduce a “one family one vote” restriction, can validly override or modify the statutory voting right created by Section 27.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The 1960 Act must be read harmoniously with the Society’s Bye-laws; Section 27 should not be interpreted in isolation.
- In group housing societies, families may own multiple flats; the “one family one vote” formula in the Bye-laws prevents such families from dominating elections merely because they control several flats.
- The High Court erred by ignoring this underlying purpose and by failing to give effect to the Society’s democratically adopted Bye-laws.
Respondents’ Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| A. Jithendernath v. Jubilee Hills Coop. House Building Society, (2006) 10 SCC 96 | A society is generally bound to act in accordance with its Bye-laws. | The Court acknowledged this principle but held that Bye-laws cannot operate in derogation of a statutory mandate; therefore, the case does not justify enforcing an invalid “one family one vote” Bye-law. |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that a legislative enactment prevails over subordinate legislation such as Bye-laws. Section 27 of the 1960 Act is “absolutely clear and unambiguous,” providing that no member shall have more than one vote, and each vote must be exercised personally. The statute embodies a “one person one vote” concept. Because the Bye-laws attempted to replace that principle with “one family one vote,” they were inconsistent with the Act and therefore invalid to that extent.
The Court distinguished between ownership of flats and membership rights, noting that while Bye-laws may regulate allocation of flats and require disclosure of family holdings, they cannot curtail the voting rights of members validly admitted under the Act. The Court applied the literal rule of statutory interpretation to Section 27, found no ambiguity, and concluded that every member on the register—regardless of family relationship—is entitled to vote. Thus, the High Court’s order required no interference.
Holding and Implications
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed. The appellant shall pay costs assessed at Rs 10,000.
Direct Implication: All individual members of the Merry Niketan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. retain an individual vote in society affairs, irrespective of familial ties or multiple flat ownership.
Broader Implication: Cooperative societies in Maharashtra cannot employ Bye-laws to dilute or alter the statutory “one member one vote” rule in Section 27 of the 1960 Act. The decision reinforces the supremacy of statutes over conflicting Bye-law provisions but sets no new precedent beyond affirming that hierarchy.
S.B Sinha, J.— Leave granted.
2. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1960 (the 1960 Act) vis-à-vis Bye-laws of the Merry Niketan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 30-4-2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents herein declaring that each member of the Society will have a separate vote was allowed.
3. Respondent 17 is a group housing cooperative society. Contesting parties hereto are its members. Some of the members of the said group housing cooperative society are members of the same family. They were, however, admitted to the membership of the Society without any reservation whatsoever.
4. The dispute which arose amongst the members of the Society started with preparation of voters' list. A provisional list of voters was published by the Managing Committee of the Society on 22-1-2004 showing the names of 35 members. However, a resolution was adopted by the Managing Committee to prepare a final list of members eligible to vote on the purported basis of Bye-laws 8(a), 9(a) and 9(b) of the Bye-laws of the Society meaning thereby that member holding more than one flat or membership in the name of his/her family members will be eligible to one vote only. On the said basis a final list of members was published. Objections thereto were submitted. Respondent 1 besides other members filed nomination for contesting the election. The same was rejected whereagainst appeals were preferred under Section 152-A of the 1960 Act by Respondents 1, 3 to 5 and 7 to 11 herein. The said appeals were dismissed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, H/West Division, Mumbai on 17-3-2004.
5. A writ petition was filed thereagainst. Some interim orders were passed by the High Court directing the votes of the members, whose names had been excluded in the final voters' list on the ground that they are members of the same family, to be kept in a separate sealed cover. Indisputably in the final voters' list which was prepared showing only one member of the family to be a voter, despite the fact that more than one member of the same family had been allotted more than one flat.
6. The High Court by reason of its impugned judgment, on interpretation of Section 27 of the 1960 Act, opined that each member of the Society is entitled to cast his/her vote despite the definition of “family” contained in Bye-law 3(xxv) of the Bye-laws of the Society.
7. Mr P. Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant inter alia submitted that the High Court committed a manifest error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the provisions of the 1960 Act are required to be read along with the Bye-laws framed by the Society. In a group housing cooperative society, the learned counsel would contend, a family may be allotted more than one flat but, however, with a view to seeing that members of the same family by reason of having been allotted more than one flat do not constitute majority, a formula has been adopted in the Bye-laws, namely, “one family one vote”.
8. Relevant part of Section 27 of the 1960 Act reads as under:
“27. Voting powers of members.—(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-sections (2) to (7), both inclusive, no member of any society shall have more than one vote in its affairs; and every right to vote shall be exercised personally and not by proxy:
Provided that, in the case of an equality of votes the Chairman shall have casting vote;”
Section 73-H of the 1960 Act reads as under:
“73-H. Responsibility of committee to hold election before expiry of term.—(1) It shall be the duty of the committee of every society to arrange for holding the election of its members before the expiry of its term.
(2) Where there is a wilful failure on the part of the committee to hold election to the committee before the expiration of its term, the committee shall cease to function on the expiration of its term and the members thereof shall cease to hold office and the Registrar may himself take over the management of the society or appoint an Administrator (who shall not be from amongst the members of the committee the term of which has so expired) and the Registrar or Administrator shall hold election within a period of six months and the committee shall be constituted before the expiration of that period.”
9. The Society has framed its own Bye-laws. A “flat” has been defined under Bye-law 3(vi) to mean:
“3. (vi) ‘flat’ means a separate and self-contained set of premises used or intended to be used for residence, or office, or showroom or shop, or godown and includes a garage, or dispensary, or consulting room, or clinic, or flour mill, or coaching classes, or palnaghar, beauty parlour, the premises forming part of a building and includes an apartment;”
“Family” has been defined in Bye-law 3(xxv) to mean:
“3. (xxv) ‘family’ means group of persons which includes husband, wife, father, mother, sister, brother, son, daughter, son-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, grandson/daughter;”
Bye-law 19 provides for the “conditions for membership”, Clause (iii) whereof reads as under:
“19. (A) An individual who is eligible to be the member and who has applied for membership of the Society in the prescribed form, may be admitted as member of the committee on complying with the following conditions:
(iii) he has given in the application, as prescribed, the particulars in regard to any house, plot or flats owned by him or any of the members of his family, anywhere in the area of operation of the Society.”
Bye-law 62 provides for holding of flat by members in the following manner:
“62. Individual member of the Society may hold more than one flat, in the buildings of the Society in his name or in the name of any of the members of his family.”
Bye-law 107 reads as under:
“107. At a general body meeting of the Society, every member of the Society, and in his absence, his associate member shall have one vote only. In case of equality of votes, the Chairman of the meeting shall have a casting vote.”
10. Bye-laws of the Society provide for different kinds of membership. Whereas a full-fledged member would be entitled to vote, an associate member may not be.
11. It is now a well-settled principle of law that a legislative Act shall prevail over the subordinate legislation. Bye-laws must, therefore, conform to the provisions of the Act and cannot act in derogation thereof.
12. Section 27 of the 1960 Act in no unmistakable terms provides for one member one vote. It is one thing to say that the object behind the slogan “one family one vote”, may be otherwise laudable, but what is necessary to be seen is as to whether the said concept has any root in the Act. If, the legislative Act provides for the concept of “one person one vote”, no bye-law can create another concept so as to defeat the legislative object. Bye-law provides for a member's right to be allotted flats in the name of his family members; but the same would not mean that under no circumstances more than one member of a family cannot become member of the Society. A difference between ownership of flat and membership must be kept in mind. When one member of the family within the meaning of Bye-law 19(iii) applies for allotment of another flat, he/she may be asked to disclose the details in regard to allotment of flat in favour of any other member of the family. But if the members of the family have been allotted flat or admitted to the membership of the Society, for the purpose of exercising the right to vote the statutory provisions shall apply.
13. Submission of learned counsel that the Society must act in terms of Bye-laws as has been observed by this Court in A. Jithendernath v. Jubilee Hills Coop. House Building Society (2006) 10 SCC 96 at para 54 is undoubtedly correct but the same would not mean that invalid bye-law shall be permitted to operate and that too in derogation to the legislative Act.
14. Section 27 of the 1960 Act is absolutely clear and unambiguous. It does not admit of two meanings. If the literal rule of interpretation is to be applied and there is no reason as to why it should not be, all members of the family who have been admitted to the membership of the Society would be entitled to vote. The Bye-law, it would bear repetition to state, cannot prevail over the statutory provision.
15. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only).
Alert