JAISINGRAO PANDURANG BADADORE AND PRABHAKAR GAWAND AND NAGAR TALUKA SOCIETY SECRETARY STAFFNAGAR TALUKA SOCIETY SECRETARY STAFF SERVANTS CO OP CR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND COLLECTOR OF NASIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions were heard together as they involve common questions of law and fact, and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In all these writ petitions, the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 27 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, as amended, is challenged on various grounds. In writ petition No. 3952 of 1984 respondent No. 6 the Nasik District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nasik is a Co-operative society duly registered under the Act. It is also a Central Co-operative Bank within the meaning of the said expression as defined in section 2(6) of the Act. It is an Apex Co-operative bank for the Nasik District. It is also a co-operative bank within the meaning of the said expression in sub-section (10) of section 2. It is also a federal society as defined in sub-section (13) of section 2 of the Act. Consequently, therefore, the voting rights in regards to the election of the Board of Directors, of respondent No. 6 are regulated in accordance with the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 27 of the Act, as amended. On the basis of the said provision, the respondents have prepared a voters list for the election. These facts are not disputed. It is the contention of the petitioners that the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 27, which came into force with effect from 26th December, 1983, is wholly null and void, it being violative of the guarantee enshrined in Article 14 of the constitution of India. As in these writ petitions, were are concerned with the said challenge only, it is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the averments or the allegations made in the other writ petitions. However, it is pertinent to note that in none of these writ petitions the respondents have chosen to file any return and, therefore, it can safely be presumed that so far as the factual averments or allegations are concerned, they stand admitted.

(3.) Dr. Naik, Shri C.J. Sawant and Shri Kamerkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the various writ petitioners, have contended before us that a federal society has several co-operative societies as its members. The members of the Managing Committee of these member societies differ in strength. Some primary co-operative societies have only 5 members on the Managing Committee, while other primary co-operative societies have differing membership ranging upto 21. This number, therefore, varies from primary co-operative society to society. All these primary co-operative societies are members of and are affiliated to the federal co-operative society. Prior to 26-12-1983 all these primary co-operative societies had only one vote under sub-section (3) of section 27 of the said Act. Now, by reason of the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 27, each co-operative society will have as many votes as will be the total number of its members on the Managing Committee. In other words, within the same class of primary co-operative societies affiliated to the federal co-operative society, there is discrimination between the same class and some co-operative societies will have more voting rights than the other depending upon the number of members on their Managing Committee. The strength of the Managing Committee of a society is not determined by any statutory provision. It is entirely decided by the bye-laws of the co-operative society. Therefore, there is an obvious hostile discrimination between co-operative societies similarly circumstanced. Further, this will create an unhealthy competition amongst the co-operative societies since each society will try to increase the number of members on its Managing Committee, which will run counter to the very object of the legislature. In this context, Shri C.J. Sawant, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2170 of 1984 has drawn our attention to the allegation made in para 7 of the said petition, which apparently shows variation in the number of the directors or members of the Managing Committee of the various Dairy Societies.