SAWALERAM SAKHARAM DATIR Vs. KARBHARI AHILAJI CHOUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELECTIONS to elect Directors of respondent No. 19 - Karkhana was held on 10th May, 1989. Results were announcd two days thereafter and respondent Nos. 1 to 18 were elected as Director of respondent No. 19 - Karkhana. This election came to be challenged under the provisions of section 144-D of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "co-operative Societies Act" for the purpose of brevity), before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, in Election Petition No. 308/1989 and by his judgment and order dated 11th July, 1990, he was pleased to dismiss the Election Petition. This judgment and order has been challenged before this Court in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in its powers of superintendance.

(2.) THOUGH several points were raised in the Election Petition, Shri A. H. Kasliwal, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, was fair enough to limit his contention to only three points. Firstly he submitted that the election programme declared for the impugned election was invalid inasmuch as 15 days time was not left between the date of scrutiny of nomination papers and last date for withdrawl of candidature as was mandatorily required by sub-section (2) of section 152-A of the Co-operative Socieities Act. Therefore, this omission vitiates the whole election. The second contention raised by Shri Kasliwal is that now it is an accepted principle that all the voters in an election to Co-operative Society are entitled to vote for all seats, but in the instant case, voters were not allowed to vote for all the seats and constituencies. The bye-laws restricted their right to vote and, therefore, the bye-laws are also invalid. The third contention raised by him is that about 20 villages were included in the area of operation of respondent No. 19 - Karkhana, much after the qualifying date for the preparation of list of voters and, therefore, inclusion of 330 voters from these villages was unjustified and since they were allowed to vote, election process stands vitiated. He also submitted that the foundation for valid election is the valid list of voters and since the list of voters for this election was defective, election deserves to be set aside. Shri R. N. Dhorde, Shri V. H. Dighe and Shri P. R. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for respective respondents, submitted that the contentions raised in the election petition were vague and no evidence was submitted by the petitioners in support of the contentions raised by them. They also contended that the provisions of section 152-A (2) are not mandatory in nature and it has not been shown that the non-observance of the said rule has prejudiced either the petitioners or any other candidate at the election. They further contended that the constituencies were drawn and the voting rights were restricted as per provisions of the bye-laws and as there was no specific challenge to the bye-laws in election petition, petitioner cannot now challenge the election on that basis.

(3.) I will firstly take second and third contention raised by Shri Kasliwal for consideration. The villages about which Shri Kasliwal has made a grievance, appears to have been included in the area of operation of respondent No. 19 - Karkhana, sometime in the month of July 1983, as is evident from the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Sugar, Ahmednagar, annexed to the return filed by the respondent at page 365. Consequential amendments were made in the bye-laws of the Karkhana specifying the constituencies and these villages were included in different constituencies. This amendment was approved in the General Body Meeting held on 29th January, 1989. Therefore, the contention raised by Shri Kasliwal appears to be factually incorrect. Though the villages were distributed in different constituencies as per bye-laws after the preperation of provisional list of voters, these villages were very much part of area of operation of respondent No. 19 - Karkhana therefore, all the members therein had right to vote in the election.