PETITIONER:
THE GOA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PEDNE TALUKA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAKPAT SAUNSTHA LTD. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996 Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B.Pattanaik Anil B.Divan, Sr.Adv., Ms. Sunita Sharma and P.H.Parekh, Advs. with him for the appellants. A.M. Khanwilkar and Mukul Mudgal, Advs. for the Respondents
ORDER
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court, Panaji Bench dated April 26, 1996 made in W.P.No.145 of 1996. It is not necessary to dilate upon the entire controversy that has arisen between the parties. Suffice it to state that on September 20, 1996, this Court, after hearing all the counsel, passed the following as:
"It is now an admitted position
that the appellant Bank is neither
National Co-operative Society, nor
Statewide notified Co-op. Society
falling under Section 35 of Multi-
State Co-op. Societies Act, 1984.
In that perspective the only
procedure for conducting the
election to other Societies is as
per Paragraph 8 of the Schedule
which envisages conducting of
elections in accordance with the
procedure prescribed therein. It is
not in dispute that the General
Body of the Society resolved to
adopt paragraphs 2 to 7 of the
Schedule for conducting elections
to the society and resolution to
that effect was passed and also the
Bye-laws were amended. The area of
controversy is whether the amended
Bye-law have been approved by the
Registrar. The High Court has
proceeded on the premise that the
Registrar, must have approved the
Bye-laws and on that premise
directed the respondent to conduct
the election. Unless the Bye-law
are approved by the Registrar, they
do not become effective.
Resultantly any election conducted
in transgression of the statutory
rules would admittedly become
invalid. Shri Mukul Mudgal, the
learned counsel for the Registrar,
is directed to file an affidavit
whether the Bye-laws have been
approved by the Registrar, or not."
Pursuant thereto, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sambhaji Dattajirao Desai has filed his affidavit in which he stated that an amendment to bye-law No.36 was approved by the Central Registrar of the Cooperative Societies on September 6, 1994. The amended bye-law was appended as Annexure R-1 which would show that:
"The Board of Directors shall
consist of 13 Directors of which 3
Directors or 1/3 of the number of
Directors whichever is less shall
be nominated by the Government or
any authority specified by it, in
this behalf, if the Government has
purchased share of the Bank. The
Managing Director shall be the Ex-
Offices member of the Board of
Directors. The other members of the
Board of Directors shall be elected
as per the Multi State Cooperative
Societies Act 1984 and Rules as
prescribed under para 2 of the
Schedule to the Multi State
Cooperative Societies Rules 1985.
The Constituency and the Units of
the affiliated Societies to the
Bank shall be as under.
The voters in respective
constituencies and units shall
elect their own Directors. The
representative of service and other
Societies affiliated to contest
election through the respective
units and constituency."
It is not in dispute that it was further amended and the bye-law, as amended for the second time, was certified by the Registrar on February 8, 1996 which reads as under:-
"In pursuance of the provisions of
the Multi-State Cooperative
Societies Act, 1984, the amendments
to bye-law No. 1(a) of the Goa
State Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
Panaji, Goa is hereby registered
under Section 9 of the Multi-State
Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (51
of 1984).
Given under my hand and seal this
the 8th day of February, 1996."
Shri Anil B. Divan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has brought to our notice the procedure applicable to the conduct of elections to the Societies as envisaged in Rule 104 and Schedule II, of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies (Registration, Membership, Direction and Amendment, Settlement of disputes, Appeal and Revision), 1985 (for short, "the Rule"). He contended that election to the society should be conducted as per rules. Shri Khanwilkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that after the amendment of the byelaws a controversy has arisen as to what is the relevant rule with reference to which election is to be conducted. We desist to he into the controversy for the reason that the election to the Society has yet to be conducted. It is axiomatic that the election requires to be conducted by the 7th respondent in accordance with the relevant rules and the bye-laws of the Societies applicable as on the date of the election. Therefore, it is for the 7th respondent to conduct the elections in accordance with the relevant rules as applicable to the Society in tune with the bye-laws of the appellant-Society as applicable to the society.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court stands set aside. The operative portion of the judgment also stands set aside. The Registrar is directed to conduct the elections in accordance with the relevant rules applicable to the Society, Bank and bye-laws of the Society, the Act as also the Rules applicable as on the date of conducting of the elections. No costs.