KRISHNA GOPAL JOSHI Vs. ANNYONYA SAHAYYAKARI MANDALI BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a candidate at the election to be held for the directorship of respondent No.1 (which is a Co-operative Bank) for the year 1972-73. The Board of Directors of respondent No. 1 Bank which is hereinafter referred to as the Society consists of nine Directors. One third of them retire every three years. In 1972-73 three vacancies arose on account of retirement by rotation and were to be filled in. On 14th August 1972 the petitioner filed his nomination paper for being elected to one of the vacancies which had occurred on the Board of Directors of the Society. At the time of the scrutiny of his nomination paper objection was raised to its validity. That objection was upheld by the Society by its resolution dated 16th August 1972 and the petitioners nomination paper was rejected.

(2.) Thereupon the petitioner filed Arbitration Case No.1 of 1972 before thee District Registrar of Baroda in which he challenged the rejection of his nomination paper. The District Registrar referred the case to the Board of Nominees. The petitioner sought an interim injunction in those proceedings. He obtained it. Respondent No. 8 challenged that order In a revision application which he filed before the Co-operatic Tribunal. By its order dated 1st March 1973 the Tribunal dismissed the revision application. Thereafter when the Arbitration Case proceeded further before the Board of Nominees respondent No. 4 applied to the Chairman of the Board of Nominees to raise additional issues. By its order dated 22nd June 1973 the Chairman of the Board of Nominees dismissed that application. That order was challenged in a revision applications which was filed before the Co-operative Tribunal. It appears that the Tribunal party allowed that revision application and directed the Chairman of the Board of Nominees to recast issue No. 2 and to try it. Thereupon When the arbitration case proceeded further before the Board of Nominees respondent No.4 again applied to the Chairman of the Board of Nominees and contended that arbitration case was not maintainable because the rejection of the nomination paper could be challenged only after the election was held and that it could not be challenged in any proceedings instituted before the election was held. He also prayed for trying that issue as a preliminary issue. the Chairman of the Board of Nominees granted that application and ordered issue No. 2A to be tried as a preliminary issue. After having tried issue No.2A as a preliminary issue it was held by the Chairman of the Board of Nominees that the dispute which petitioner raised was not entertainable before the election was held by the Chairman case which the petitioner filed was therefore dismissed and the interim injunction granted to him was vacated. The petitioner appealed against that decision to the Cooperative Tribunal. In that appeal he raised two contentions. His first contention was that the Chairman of the Board of Nominees had become functus officio on account of the fact that on the date when he made the final order in the arbitration case his appointment had expired and that therefore he had no authority to decide the case. The second contention which was raised in that appeal was based upon the merits of the case. It was contended that the arbitration case which the petitioner had filed was maintainable because such an election dispute could be entertained before the election was held. The Co-operative Tribunal rejected both these contentions and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The petitioner has filed this petition both under Articles 227 and 226 of ten Constitution. In so far as the petition is filed under Article 227 the petitioner challenges the correctness and legality of the order made by the Co-operative Tribunal. In so far as it filed under Article 226 he seeks relief against the rejection of his nomination paper.