BRIJARAJSINH HEMANTSINH JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.223 of 2011 with Special Civil Application No.2177 of 2011. By the common impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge dismissed both the petitions by upholding right of the State Government to send representatives and nomination of the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, on the board of the Gujarat State Cooperative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited (for short 'the Bank') under Section 80(1) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) So far as appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No.913 of 2011 is concerned, the said appellant had filed Special Civil Application No.2177 of 2011 before the learned Single Judge. The said appellant was one of the elected Directors, who lost election to the post of Chairman in the Bank, which election was held on 17th January, 2011. In his petition, the said appellant - original petitioner challenged the action of the State Government in nominating respondent No.2 on the ground that under Section 80(3) of the Act, the respondent No.2, i.e. Registrar, cannot act as a Member of the Board of Director of the Bank. So far as appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No.914 of 2011 are concerned, they were original petitioners of Special Civil Application No.223 of 2011. The same has been filed by the elected members of the Board of Directors of the Bank. Since the main issue involved in both these Letters Patent Appeals is common, i.e. powers of State Government to send its representatives to the Board of Directors to the Gujarat State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, the learned Single Judge heard both the matters together and by the common judgment and order, dismissed both the petitions. The learned Single Judge held that since the State Government stood as guarantor, it has a right to send its representatives in the management of the Bank under Section 80 (1) of the Act. The learned Single Judge also found that at the instance of the petitioner, petitions are not maintainable as the Bank itself has not challenged the decision and the petitioners are the Directors and therefore, cannot challenge such decision which is accepted by the Bank.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavati appearing with learned counsel, Mr.Mangukiya on behalf of the appellants - original petitioners argued that since the State Government has not subscribed to the share capital to the Bank i.e. Gujarat State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank under the provisions of Section 80(3) of the Act, the State Government cannot send more than one nominee. In the instant case, since there are three nominees sent by the State Government, the said action is, therefore, violative of Section 80(3) of the Act. It is also argued by Mr.Nanavati that simply because the State Government stood as guarantor, it is not a ground for coming to the conclusion that inspite of clear language of Section 80(3) of the Act, the State Government is entitled to send its representative ignoring the mandate of Section 80(3) of the Act. It is submitted that when the State Government has not subscribed to the share capital, the Government is not entitled to send more than one representative as per Section 80(3) of the Act and Section 80(1) of the Act will have not application. The only argument, which is raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants before us is that, the State Government has no power to send more than one representative to the management of the Bank and according to Mr.Nanavati, at the most it can only send one representative. It is also argued by Mr.Nanavati that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the clear mandate of Section 80(3) of the Act and while interpreting the said Section, it is not necessary to refer to statement and object of the Act and to find out the object for incorporating Section 80(3) of the Act in the Statute book. It is submitted that when the language of the Section itself is clear, the Court is required to interpret the Section as it is. In case where there is some ambiguity, the Court can certainly consider the statement and object in order to find out legislative intent. However, according to Mr.Nanavati, in this case, when the language of the Section itself is very clear, the Court may interpret the Section as it is. It is submitted that the bank in question is a cooperative bank and as per the bye-laws, the bank is also entitled to give loan to other cooperative societies. It is submitted that the Central Bank in question can be said to be a Bank as defined under Section 2(3) of the Act. Mr.Nanavati also argued that it is no doubt true that the Bank, in the instant case, cannot be said to be a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society or a Central Co-operative Bank which are included in the co-operative credit structure, as it is dealing in long-term loan facility, yet on interpretation of Section 80(3) of the Act the State Government may not be entitled to send any representative as provided under Section 80(3) of the Act. Mr.Nanavati submitted that in any case, the learned Single Judge has erred in interpreting Section 80(3) of the Act by holding that even if the State has not subscribed to the share capital, yet since it stood as guarantor, Section 80(1) is still applicable, as Section 80(3) of the Act is not dealing with such a situation where the State has stood as guarantor.