DAHYABHAI BECHARDAS PATEL Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 for the prayers inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the respondent no.2. It is also prayed that the appointment of the respondent no.2 as an Election Officer for conducting election of the Board of Directors of the respondent no.3 for the terms 201415 and 201617 may be set aside with a further direction to appoint Election Officer as per the byelaws of the respondent no.3 bank on the grounds stated in the memo of petition.

(2.) HEARD learned advocate, Shri H.M. Parikh for the petitioners, learned AGP Shri Ronak Raval for the respondent nos.1 and 2, learned advocate, Shri Baiju Joshi for the respondent no.3 and learned advocate, Shri Siraj Gori for the newly added party respondents nos.4 and 5.

(3.) LEARNED advocate, Shri Parikh referred to the papers and submitted that the petitioners are the members of the respondent no.3society (bank) and the election is scheduled to be held, which is contrary to the byelaws of the society and same is produced on record at AnnexureB. He pointedly referred to the ScheduleA produced at AnnexureB and submitted that the Election Officer as provided would mean Managing Committee. It was submitted that the election is required to be held by the bank or the Managing Committee of the bank and the respondent no.2, Election Officer, has to only supervise and conduct the election as per the schedule prepared by the bank or the Managing Committee of the bank. He submitted that as per the resolution of the Board of Directors, the election was scheduled to be held on 30.11.2014 and entire programme has been provided as stated on page no.27 of the petition. He submitted that col.no.10 provides for polling booth at the Head Office as well as at different branches so that the members can exercise their franchise. Learned advocate, Shri Parikh submitted that the election has to be held in a democratic way and it is to facilitate holding of election, by which, more voters can participate and, therefore, it may not be possible for some of the members to travel to Kalol and, therefore, it was decided to have polling at respective branches also. Learned advocate, Shri Parikh submitted that if the polling booth and voting facility is provided at local level at branches, members could participate and exercise their franchise, which would subserve the ultimate purpose of the election in a democratic manner. However, he submitted that the respondent no.3 has changed the election programme, which is produced at AnnexureE, which he has pointedly referred to and submitted that polling or voting is provided only at the Head Office of the bank at Kalol, which would cause hardship. Learned advocate, Shri Parikh submitted that the Election Officer cannot reschedule the programme nor does he has any authority to hold the election and he has only to supervise the holding of the election. He therefore submitted that such a communication or the order is without any jurisdiction or power. He also referred to the representation made by the members at AnnexureF for providing voting facility at the branches. He also referred to the affidavitinreply filed by the respondent no.3bank and submitted that the respondent no.3 has also clearly stated that as per clause 3.1 of the byelaws, election programme is to be prepared by the Managing Committee of the bank. He also referred to the Election Rules 6.1 at page no.22 and submitted that voting could take place as per the decision taken and programme published by the Managing Committee. He submitted that if the Managing Committee has decided that the voting can take place at five different branches or cities, where the branches of the bank are situated, the Election Officer cannot have power or authority to alter such polling station to hold election to one place instead of five places i.e. head office of the bank. He also referred to the byelaws and submitted that it is in violation of clauses 3.1 and 6.1 of ScheduleA of the byelaws and, therefore, the present petition may be allowed.