LLTID SANTOS Vs. FARNCIS FIGUEREDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioners have taken a dispute to the Co-operative Court challenging the election of office bearers of the Society-respondent No. 4 of which they are members. At the election, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were elected as members of a provisional managing committee. Apart from the challenge to the election of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, there are other disputes which are also referred to the Co-operative Court. The respondents then called a meeting to be held on 8th November 1975 and one of the matters on the agenda was confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 24th October 1974 at which the respondents were elected and the legality of which meetings was already the subject-matter of dispute before the Co-operative Court. The petitioners, therefore, asked for an injunction restraining the managing committee form holding the meeting. That injunction was granted on 6th November 1975 and was confirmed on 29th December 1975. The society-respondent No. 4, respondent No. 1 and one another person filed appeal against the order confirming the injunction before the Co-oprative Appellate Court. While disposing of that appeal the Co-operative Appellate Court, however, has taken the view that the life span of the provisional committee, being only for one year and the year having ended long back, the managing committee contintled to hold office even though its term had long back expired. The Appellate Court also took the view that the main and the principal relief sought in the dispute related to the election of the managing committee and in view of the passage of time, it has now become irrelevant and the managing committee has immediately to vacate in favour of a newly elected managing committee. It, therefore, held that it would be only academic to examine'the legality or otherwise of the first annual general meeting. The Appellate Court noticed the apprehansion that the elections, if they are held by the present managing committee would not be proper and considered the suggestion of the present petitioners that an impartial independentauthority should supervise the elections. Having regard to this request, the Appellate Court observed as follows :

(2.) Two grievances are made on behalf of the petitioners at the hearing. Firstly it is contended that the legality of thev meeting of 24th October 1974 is itself challenged with all its consequences and, therefore, the dispute did not bacome infructuous merely because one year's period for which the provisional committee was elected had expired. The second grievance made is that in spite of the directions given by the Co-operative Appellate Court as far back as on 16th August 1976, the District Deputy Registrar has not taken any steps to hold fresh elections till to-day.

(3.) On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners we are satisfied that the observations made by the Appellate Court that the dispute itself has become infructuous were not called for. The appeal before the Appallate Court was against the order confirming the injunction restraining (h)holdinag of the meeting which was scheduled to be held on 8th November 1975. The petitioners' case in the dispute is that the meeting held on 24th October 1974 was itself illegal and that the proceedings of that day did not have any legal validity. Notwithstanding the fact that the provisional committee was elected on 24th October, 1974 only fora period of one year, a decision as to the legality of ths meeting would have some impact on the transactions entered into by the provisional committee. The validity of the election held on 24th October, 1974 would also have its impact on the transaction entered into by the provisional committee. It cannot, therefore, be said that merely because the period for which the provisional committee was elected had expired, the challenge to the legality of the meeting of 24th October 1974 and the challenge to the status of the members of the provisional committee had become academic. Those observation wers, therefore, completely uncalled. It is only against that part of the order of the Appellate Court that this petition has been filed and consequently, it has tobe held that the view which the Appellate Court has taken that the dispute is infructuous, which is a view on which the Co-operative Court is likely to act, was entirely erroneous.