MAGANBHAI AMTHABHAI CHAUDHRY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition raises very important and serious issues arising from electoral process in the co-operative sector. THE petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 30.03.2011 of the Election Officer (Additional Collector, Mehsana) appointed for holding election of Managing Committee of Mehsana District Milk Producers Co-operative Union Ltd, whereby name of the petitioner was removed and name of respondent No.7 was inducted in the voters' list as representative of Megha Aliasana Milk Producers Co-operative Society.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that Megha Aliasana Milk Producers Co-operative Society (Society for short) is a primary level milk producers society attached to Mehsana District Milk Producers Co-operative Union Ltd. (for short, Sangh), which is a specified co-operative society in terms of Section 74-C of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). The petitioner was a member of the Executive Committee of the Society which consisted of total 15 members. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.01.2011 of the Sangh, the Society was invited to nominate its representative by sending a resolution of its Managing Committee to that effect; and four copies of such resolution with seal and signature of President and Secretary of the Society were required to be sent to the Sangh so as to be received by it on or before 24.01.2011. Therefore, a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Society was held on 20.01.2011 and the petitioner was elected and appointed as representative by a resolution of that date; and the resolution was forwarded in the prescribed manner for inclusion of his name in the voters' list of the Sangh. Thereafter, the then Chairman of the Society, respondent No.6, purported to have passed another resolution nominating respondent No.7 to represent the Society, which was the genesis of the dispute. IT is alleged on oath by the petitioner that the second resolution dated 22.01.2011 was passed with the help of only two other members of the Executive Committee, taking advantage and disadvantage of political influence as leader of Bharatiya Janta Party, the party in power in the State of Gujarat. Therefore, majority members of the Society decided to take action of moving no-confidence motion against the Chairman and the motion was passed by resolution dated 27.01.2011 of which a copy was also forwarded to the District Registrar. 2.1 District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mehsana, respondent No.2 herein, issued notice on 01.02.2011 to members of the Executive Committee of the Society to show cause as to why they should not be removed under section 76-B of the Act. After that notice being replied, District Registrar removed all the members of the Executive Committee by order dated 29.03.2011, in exercise of his power under section 76-B of the Act. And a Custodian was appointed to take over charge of the Society on 30.03.2011. On the other hand, the Chairman, respondent No.6, raised objection before the Election Officer (respondent No.3) to include in the voters' list name of respondent No.7 in place of the petitioner. Respondent No.7 also made an application on 25.03.2011 to include his name in the voters' list. Thus, the dispute regarding inclusion of name either of the petitioner or of respondent No.7 came to be decided by impugned order dated 30.03.2011, while the election programme for Managing Committee of the Sangh was already declared and the period for filing of nominations was between 06.04.2011 to 11.04.2011. IT was at that stage that the petitioner approached this Court on 04.04.2011, when a caveat was also filed by respondent No.7.

(3.) BY filing an affidavit of the General Manager of respondent No.4 Sangh, it is stated that the Sangh had received resolution dated 20.01.2011 nominating the petitioner as representative of the Society, and the Election Officer had published preliminary voters' list on 18.3.2011, which included the name of the petitioner. As against the objection raised by respondent No.6, the Sangh had filed its reply dated 29.3.2011 stating that the Sangh had received only copy of the resolution dated 20.01.2011. The Sangh had verified the resolution dated 20.01.2011 which is passed and recorded in its original audited minutes book and as such true and correct record was forwarded by it to the Election Officer. It is also stated that the Sangh had no nexus with the internal dispute of the Society and the allegations against any of the officers of the Sangh were incorrect. Thus, the Sangh has substantially supported the case of the petitioner and denied the allegations made against it, but ultimately urged that the petition is required to be dismissed.