SHIVAGOUDA Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND HEADQUARTERS ASSISTANT FOR THE COMMISSIONER FOR CANE DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned order dated 9-3-2005 vide Annexure-A, the Joint registrar of Co-operative Societies has directed the 2nd respondent herein to prepare final voters list of "a" Class members by including the members who have paid the share capital of Rs. 2,000/ -.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the respondents 4 to 514 were enrolled as "a" Class members of the 2nd respondent-Sugar Factory by paying share capital of Rs. 2,000/- at the time of commencement of the factory as per the bye-laws existed then. In the year 2003, the State government published model bye-laws for all the sugar factories in the state, which are to be adopted by the individual sugar factories at their discretion. Respondent 2-Sugar Factory in its General Body Meeting held on 30-9-2003, adopted the said model bye-laws in their entirety. However, the said bye-laws came to be registered on 24-12-2003. The relevant portion of the model bye-laws is produced at Annexure-M to the writ petition. But some of the 'a' Class members (respondents herein)filed revision petition before the State Government challenging the registration of model bye-laws. The registration of the model bye-laws was stayed by the Government by the order dated 12-2-2004. Consequently, new bye-laws were not given effect to, and the bye-laws which were existing earlier to the date of accepting the model bye-laws continued to operate. The said revision petition was dismissed for default before the State Government on 9-3-2005. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Counsel appearing for respondents that an application for restoration is filed before the State Government praying tor restoration of the revision petition and the matter is still pending consideration.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Balakrishna Shastry submits that as per the model bye-laws, the sugarcane growers who have paid Rs. 5,000/- towards the share capital only, are entitled to be classified/continued as 'a' Class members and as these respondents 4 to 514 have not paid Rs. 5,000/- towards the share capital, they cannot be classified and continued as 'a' Class members: consequently their names cannot be included in the voters list pertaining to 'a' Class members. Per contra, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel Shri Jayakumar S. Patil appearing on behalf of respondent 4 that nowhere in the model bye-laws, it is stated that the existing 'a -Class members who were enrolled as members by paving share capital of Rs. 2,000/- shall be removed from the list of 'a Class members and are not entitled for the voting rights or any other benefits. He further submits that even assuming that the model bye-laws are adopted by the 2nd respondent-Sugar Factory, they will operate prospectively and not retrospectively. On these grounds, he submits that the existing 'a Class category of members as on the date of adoption of model bye-laws cannot be removed from the said list.