DINKAR TUKARAM GAJARE Vs. PREMCHAND UTTAMCHAND PAGARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to get quashed the order made by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, 6th respondent hereto, on 22-4-1964, setting aside the election of the petitioner to the Board of Director of Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. the second respondent hereto.

(2.) FACTS in brief are : The second respondent is a Federal Co-operative Society. Sub-section (13) of S. 2 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) defines a "federal society" thus : "federal society" means a society (a) not less than five members of which are themselves societies, and (b) in which the voting rights are so regulated that the members which are societies have not less than four-fifths of the total number of votes in the general meeting of such society," it would thus be seen that the membership of the federal society consists of shareholders falling under two categories (1) society and (2) individual shareholders. It would also be seen that sub-sec (13) of section 2 requires that voting rights at the general meeting have to be so regulated that the members which are societies have not less than four-fifths of the total number of votes. In other words, the voting rights at the general meeting have to be so regulated that the individual share holder have not more than 1/5th of the voting strength of the total number of votes. To achieve this object, the State Government, in exercise of its rule making power, have framed rule 22 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. The said rule inter alia, reads :

(3.) BEFORE us the 1st respondent has not appeared to contest the petition. So also respondents Nos. 3, 4, and 5 who were the contesting candidates, have not appeared to defend the petition. The second respondent is represented by its counsel Mr. Jahagirdar. He has supported the petition. Mr. Gumaste, learned Addl. Govt. Pleader appearing for respondent No. 7, State of Maharashtra, stated before us that the third respondent would submit to the order of the Court. In short he has also not opposed the petition. There is no appearance on behalf of the 6th respondent, which is the Tribunal. We have, therefore, not the benefit of an argument in opposition to the contentions raised by the petitioner. We would, however, take the view taken by the Tribunal as the case of the first respondent, inasmuch as we have been informed that respondents No. 4 and 5 have remained ex parte throughout. The view expressed by the Tribunal is founded on the aforesaid provisions of rule 22 and bye-law No. 18 framed by the second respondent society. It would be necessary to reproduce the material part of bye-law 18. Bye-law 18 falls under heading "general Meeting", so also bye-law No. 24 to which we would advert later. Material part of bye-law No. 18 reads : (18) The Supreme Authority of the Bank shall be vested in the General Meeting consisting of delegates from affiliated societies, and of all the delegates of members other than affiliated societies. The voting rights of the individual member (which term shall include firm, company of body corporate, society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860, State Govt. Local Authority, and Public Trust registered under any law for the time being in force relating to Registration of Public Trusts but shall not include a society) shall be regulated as follows :