Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Jayakumar S. Patil
  • S.S. Patil
  • V.C. Brahmaiayappa
  • Advocates.
Judges
  • Mr. Justice Puttaswamy
Acts
  • Co-operative Societies Act of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules')
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Jayakumar S. Patil
  • S.S. Patil
  • V.C. Brahmaiayappa
  • Advocates.
Judges
  • Mr. Justice Puttaswamy
Acts
  • Co-operative Societies Act of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules')
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ petition under Article 226 challenged notice No. Ref. 2027-37/78-79 dated 3-10-1978 issued by the Secretary of the Belgaum Division Regulated Markets Employees Welfare and Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Hubli ("the Society"), insofar as item No. 3 proposed the election of the President of the Society.

The Society is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ("the Act"), and the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 ("the Rules"), and operates under bye-laws approved under the Act. Petitioners are members of the Society. Respondents 2 to 9 were elected as Directors (the committee of management). Petitioners alleged that no President had been elected by the members of the Society as required by bye-law No. 24(1), and that the Secretary's notice proposing election of a President from among the committee of management was impermissible.

Respondents contended that, after the insertion of section 29a(4) of the Act by Karnataka Act No. 39 of 1975, the President must be elected from among the members of the committee of management and not by the general body. On 6-10-1978 the vacation Judge issued a rule nisi and an interim order restraining the committee of management from electing a President from among themselves. The court proceeded to examine the construction of section 29a(4), the Rules (including Rule 14a introduced by the Sixth Amendment Rules, 1977), and bye-law No. 24(1).

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether sub-section (4) of section 29a of the Act (as inserted by Karnataka Act No. 39 of 1975) and the corresponding Rule(s) operate to require the election of the President from among the members of the committee of management, thereby overriding bye-law No. 24(1) which provides for election of the President from among the members of the Society.
  2. Whether the Secretary, by including item No. 3 in the notice dated 3-10-1978 (proposing election of a President from among the committee of management), acted lawfully or in manifest violation of bye-law No. 24(1), and whether the petitioners can seek relief under Article 226 to enforce compliance with the statutory duty imposed on the Secretary by section 29a(4) and Rule 14a.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • Bye-law No. 24(1) expressly provides that the President of the Society must be elected from among the members of the Society (in an Annual General Body Meeting or a Special General Body Meeting), not by the committee of management.
  • The Secretary's notice proposing election of a President from among the committee of management is impermissible and manifestly illegal as it conflicts with bye-law No. 24(1).
  • The petitioners seek enforcement of the statutory duty imposed on the Secretary by section 29a(4) and Rule 14a, which require the Secretary to convene a meeting in accordance with the bye-laws to elect office-bearers; this statutory duty is enforceable under Article 226.

Respondents' Arguments

  • Relying on the insertion of section 29a(4) by Karnataka Act No. 39 of 1975, the President must be elected from among the members of the committee of management only, not by the members of the Society.
  • The words "convene a meeting in the prescribed manner of all the members of the committee" in section 29a(4) were stressed to support the contention that the Secretary is to convene the committee for election of the President and thus the President must be elected by the committee.
  • Respondents also contended that the petitioners were seeking to enforce a bye-law (which they described as not being a "law") and implied that such enforcement is not a matter for Article 226; they argued that petitioners are only enforcing a bye-law rather than a statutory duty.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the operative texts: bye-law No. 24(1) (which expressly provides that the President should be elected from among the members of the Society), sub-section (4) of section 29a of the Act (inserted by Karnataka Act No. 39 of 1975), and Rule 14a of the Rules (introduced by the Sixth Amendment Rules, 1977).

The court reproduced and examined the language of section 29a(4):

"the secretary of the co-operative society shall within fifteen days from the date of election convene a meeting in the prescribed manner of all the members of the committee (including nominated and ex-officio members if any) for the purpose of electing the President, the vice-President, the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and such other office bearers as are required to be elected under the bye-laws of the co-operative society."

The court rejected the respondents' construction that section 29a(4) abrogates or overrides any contrary bye-law and mandates that the President must be elected only from the committee of management. The court explained that:

  • Section 29a(4) nowhere expressly states that bye-laws providing for election of a President shall stand abrogated or that the President shall be chosen only from the committee notwithstanding contrary bye-laws.
  • The plain effect of section 29a(4) is to require the Secretary to convene, within fifteen days, a meeting "for the purpose of electing" the specified office-bearers "as are required to be elected under the bye-laws of the co-operative society."
  • The phrase "as are required to be elected under the bye-laws" demonstrates that the Secretary's duty is to act in accordance with the bye-laws; the section imposes a time-bound statutory obligation to convene a meeting in accordance with the bye-laws rather than to displace them.
  • Statutory construction principles require reading a section as a whole and giving effect to every part; a harmonious construction must be preferred to one that renders parts redundant or defeats the object of legislation. The respondents' suggested narrow reading—ignoring the qualifying words—was contrary to these principles and liable to be rejected.

Applying these interpretive conclusions to the facts, the court found that the Secretary, by including item No. 3 (election of the President from among the committee) in the impugned notice, acted in manifest violation of bye-law No. 24(1). The court treated the Secretary's statutory duty under section 29a(4) and Rule 14a as enforceable by writ under Article 226, rejecting the contention that petitioners could not rely on Article 226 because they were enforcing a bye-law.

Procedurally, because an interim order had already stayed the scheduled meeting (on 8-10-1978), the court noted that it was unnecessary to quash the notice except to issue an appropriate writ directing compliance with the bye-laws.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

Writ of mandamus issued directing the Secretary of the Belgaum Division Regulated Markets Employees Welfare and Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Hubli, to call for a special General Body Meeting to elect a President of the Society from among the members of the Society in accordance with the bye-laws, and to complete that election on or before 31-12-1978; Rule made absolute.

Direct implications and orders contained in the opinion:

  • The Secretary acted in manifest violation of bye-law No. 24(1) by proposing election of the President from among the committee of management, and must instead comply with the bye-laws when convening and conducting the election.
  • The court made the rule absolute and directed issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus (if necessary with departmental approval) to secure performance of the statutory duty in accordance with the bye-laws.
  • The special General Body Meeting to elect the President must be called and the election completed by 31-12-1978.
  • The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
  • A copy of the order was to be communicated to respondents Nos. 1 and 10 within one week.

Broader implications:

The opinion does not purport to lay down a new general principle beyond the statutory construction applied to the particular provisions (section 29a(4) and Rule 14a) and the specific bye-law (No. 24(1)). The court confined its decision to the direct effect on the Secretary's duty and the election procedure for the Society; no new precedent beyond this interpretation was asserted in the opinion.

End of summary — content limited strictly to material contained in the provided opinion.

Show full summary ...

    Sekrappa v. Belgaum Division Regulated Market Employees Welfare And Credit Co-Op.Society

    (1) IN this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for the quashing of the notice No. Ref. 2027-37/78-79, dated 3-10-1978 (Ext. 'b') issued by the Secretary of the Belgaum Division Regulated market Employees Welfare and Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. , hubli. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'), in so far as it relays to item No. 3 viz. , election to the office of the President of the Society and for consequential reliefs.

    (2) ADMITTEDLY the Society is registered and functioning under the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed thereunder and the bye-laws framed by the Society and approved by the competent authority under the Act among others, the petitioners are the members of the Society. For the committee of management of the Society respondents 2 to 9 have been elected as the Directors of the Society. In their writ petition the petitioners have specifically asserted that the members of the Society have not elected any body as the President of the Society as required by bye-law No. 24 (1)of the Bye-laws of the Society which fact is not denied by respondent No. 1 or by others that have filed their return in the case At the hearing of the case also, learned counsel for the, respondents did not dispute this assertion of the petitioners. On 3-10-1978 the Secretary has issued notice to the members of the committee of management to transact the various items of business included in that notice, one of them being to elect a President of the Society from among themselves. The case of the petitioners is that a president can be elected only by the members of the Society and not by the members of the committee of management and therefore the notice issued by the Secretary in so far as it relates to the election to the office of the President from among the members of the committee of management is impermissible and the same is therefore liable to be interfered with by this Court. The entire case of the petitioner turns on bye-law No. 24 (1) of the Society. In a, common statement of objections respondents 1 to 4, 9 and 11 have resisted the case of the petitioners principally on the ground that in view of the statutory provisions made in the Act and the Rules, the Presidemt of the Society has to be elected from among the members of the committee of management only and not by the members of the Society. It is the case of the respondents that on a true construction of sub-sec. (4) of S. 29a of the Act introduced by the Karnataka Act No. 39 of 1975 the President can be elected from among the members of the Committee of management only and he cannot be elected from among the members as contended by the petitioners.

    (3) ON 6-10-1978 Sabhahit, J. , as the vacation Judge issued rule nisi in the case and has issued an interim order preventing the committee of management to elect a President from among the members of the committee of management. Sri Jayakumar Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that under bye-law No. 24 (1) of the Society the President can be elected from among the members of the Society and the action taken by the Secretary of the Society proposing to elect a President from among the members of the committee of management is impermissible and is manifestly illegal. Learned, counsel for the respondents refuted the contention of Sri Jayakumar Patil and urged that on the insertion of S. 29a by the Karnataka Act No. 39 of the 1975, the President of the Society can and should be elected from among the members of the committee of management only and not by the members of the Society and therefore the action taken by the Secretary is legal.

    (4) LEARNED counsel for the respondents do not dispute that under bye-law no. 24 (1) of the Society as it stands even now, the President of the society can be elected only in an annual General Body Meeting or a special general Body Meeting from among the members of the Society and not by the members of the committee of management. Bye-law No. 24 (1) in express terms provides that the President of the Society should be elected from among the members which necessarily can be done, in an annual general Body Meeting of the Society or a special General Body Meeting of the Society. It is settled law that a bye-law must yield to a Rule and a rule must yield to an Act of legislature. Learned counsel for the respondents did not urge that any Rule made by the Government under the Act has nullified bye-law No. 24 (1) of the Society and has provided for ejection of the President from among the members of the committee of management. Undoubtedly, an Act of legislature can nullify the provisions of bye-law no. 24 (1) and Provide for election of the, President of the Society from among the members of the committee of management. But the question is whether sub-sec. (4) of S. 29a of the Act introduced by the Karnataka act No. 39 of 1975 has provided for such a situation as contended by the respondents. In order to appreciate this contention it is useful to read sub-sec. (4) of S. 29a of the Act and the same reads thus :

    "the secretary of the co-operative society shall within fifteen days from the date of election convene a meeting in the prescribed manner of all the members of the committee (including nominated and ex-officio members if any) for the purpose of electing the President, the vice-President, the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and such other office bearers as are required to be elected under the bye-laws of the co-operative society."

    Sub-sec. (4) of S. 29a nowhere says that the bye-laws of any society providing for the election of a President of any Society in any of its bye-laws shall stand abrogated and a President to any Society shall be elected only from among the members of the committee of management nothwithstanding any contrary provisions made in any bye-law of any Society. Sub-sec. (4) only directs that a Secretary of a Co-operative Society shall within 15 days from the date of election convene a meeting of the members of the committee of management for purpose of electing the President, the Vice-President, the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman and such other office bearers as are required to be elected under the bye-laws of the co-operative society. The Section only directs the Secretary to take action within a period of 15 days to elect such of the office-bearers of the Society in accordance with the bye- laws of that Society. It does not say that the Secretary should take action contrary to the terms of the bye-laws of the Society. On the other hand, this section expressly directs the Secretaru to take action accordance with the bye-laws of the Society within a particular time. This section and the rule 14a of the rules introduced by the Karnataka Co-operative societies (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 1977 imposes a statutory obligation on the Secretary to convene a meeting in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society to elect the various office-bearers of the Society.

    (5) LEARNED counsel for the respondents laid great stress on the words "convene a meeting in the prescribed manner of all the members of the committee" occurring in S. 29a (4) and contended that the President of the society can be elected only from the members of the Committee of management and not from among the members of the Society. In just a position they also urged that S. 29a (4) nowhere provides for convening an annual general Body Meeting or a special General Body Meeting to elect a President of the Society. In suggesting this construction, learned counsel for the respondents wants me to overlook or ignore the words following and in particular the words "as are required to be elected under the bye-laws of the co-operative society. " In ascertaining the true scope and ambit of any provision, it is a settled principle that a section must be read as a whole and effect must be given to every part of the statute and even if there is any ambiguity a harmonious construction should be placed so as to achieve the object of legislation. In my opinion, the construction suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents is opposed to the well settled principles of construction of statutes and will defeat the object of legislation and is therefore liable to be rejected.

    (6) ON a true and proper construction of 9. 29a (4) the Secretay is only authorised to take action to convene a meeting whether it be of the committee of management or of a General Body Meeting to elect the office-bearers of the society in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society and it is not open to him to ignore the provisions made in the bye-laws of the society. In this case, it is manifest that the Secretary in inducing item No. 3 in the impugned notice has acted m manifest violation of bye-law No. 24 (1) and the same was therefore impermissible.

    (7) LEARNED counsel for the respondents urged that the petitioners are only enforcing the provisions made in the bye-law which is not a law and therefore the same cannot be enforced under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Sri Jayakumar Patil contended that the petitioners are not enforcing the provisions made in the bye-law of the Society, but they are seeking for the enforcement of the statutory duty imposed on the Secretary by S. 29a (4)of the Act and Rule 14a of the Rules. S. 29a (4) of the Act and Rule 14a of the Rule clearly enjoin the Secretary to convene a meeting in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society. The duty imposed on the Secretary by the provisions is a statutory duty and the same undoubtedly is enforceable under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In the performance of his statutory duly the Secretary by including a subject in violation of the bye-laws has committed a manifest illegality and the same can therefore be corrected by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. I am therefore of the opinion that there is no merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and reject the same.

    (8) EARLIER I have pointed out that the meeting scheduled to be held on 8-10-1978 to elect a President had been stayed by this Court on 6-10-1978 and therefore it is not necessary to quash the notice dated 3-10-1978 impugned in this writ petition in so far as it relates to item No. 3 viz. , election to the office of the President of the Society, except to issue an appropriate writ to respondent No. 1 to perform his duties in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society. I therefore direct the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to, the Secretary of the Belgaum Division Regulated markets Employees Welfare and Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. , Hubli, if necessary with the approval of such office of the Co-operation Department, to call for a special General Body Meeting to elect a President to the said Society from among the members of the Society in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society with utmost expedition and complete the same on or before 31-12-1978.

    (9) RULE made absolute.

    (10) IN the circumstances of the raze, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.

    (11) LET a copy of this order be communicated to respondents Nos. 1 and 10 within a week from this day.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Sekrappa v. Belgaum Division Regulated Market Employees Welfare And Credit Co-Op.Society
    (Nov 2, 1978)