M NAGARAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsels representing the parties and the learned Government Advocate on merits. A very limited relief has been sought in this appeal which is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 37703 of 1999, dated 13-12-1999. The learned Single Judge had set aside the election of the office-bearers and had directed a fresh election but while doing so, the observation in paragraph 10 of the order was to the effect that the provisions of Section 29-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 prescribe that the Committee shall be deemed to have been validly constituted if it consists of the majority of elected members. In the present instance, having regard to the disqualifications that had taken place that there were only seven persons who continued validly on the Committee and out of them, since four were present the contention raised was that the committee had been validly constituted for purposes of holding the election. The appellants learned Counsel submitted that since this issue is one of consequence that he has confined his challenge only to that aspect of the order because it is his submission that the learned Single Judge was in error in having applied the provisions of Section 29-A, whereas, in fact he ought to have applied Section 29-F read with Rule 14-A of the bye-laws. What is demonstrated is that unless the Court accepts this interpretation that there is scope for serious irregularities taking place as has happened in the present case where a typical situation emanating from one where a small minority of members exercise the powers of the Committee and then contend that they have elected the office-bearers from among themselves. The submission is that the law of meetings always prescribes for a minimum quorum for very good reason and that where there are two differing provisions that it is very necessary to apply the correct provision when the purpose of the meeting is for the election of the office-bearers. The further submission that is canvassed is that Section 29-F deals with a specific situation, namely, one wherein the office-bearers are being elected and Section 29-A deals with all other situations where the Committee would be meeting to transact normal day-to-day business not necessarily the elections. The added submission is that where the Section 29-F mandates that the election shall be held in consonance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and the Bye-laws, that this last aspect cannot be ignored.

(2.) THE learned Government Advocate has submitted that the Act has undergone changes from time to time but he has supported the submission canvassed on behalf of the appellants because his contention is that it is very necessary in order to avoid illegalities but more importantly in order to avoid possible mischief to provide for adequate representation in keeping with the provisions of law and that in cases where the byelaws specify for a specific quorum that this provision would apply. In sum and substance, he has contended that the reliefs asked for in this appeal are liable to be granted.

(3.) WE have done a careful analysis of the relevant provisions and we do find that there is a specific legislative intent behind providing for the holding of the elections in the manner prescribed by Section 29-F of the act. This is an independent section and more importantly, it is a specific provision which would necessarily override the general provision as contained in Section 29-A. On the state of the present record where the bye-laws mandate that the quorum shall be five members of the Committee, this provision would necessarily be binding and if any meeting is held with less than five members, then that meeting cannot transact any business, namely, the election of the office-bearers.