SAMBHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE nominations of the three petitioners in these petitions were rejected on the ground that they violate the requirement prescribed under clause 'e' of Election Rule No. 2 appended to the bye-laws, The requirement is that the candidate, on the date of filing of the nomination. should not be himself defaulter, or should not be a surety to a defaulter-borrower. The fact that the petitioners are sureties for the borrowing members who are defaulters is not in dispute. (2)The rejection of the nomination papers by respondent no 3 has been challenged firstly on the ground that there is no power with the Co-operative Spciety-reipondent no. 4 to frame such a bye-law since it would be in derogation with the specific provision made by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960, in Section 73 FF and 73 FFF. It is also contended by the petitioners, that there cannot be a bye-law which could further make restriction on democratic right of the member to contest election apart from those which have been provided for by tge Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and under the rules made thereunder Furthet submission made by Shri Talekar, Counsel appearing on behalf of petitionerse is that every bye-law should have nexus with the object to be achieved. To put a restriction that the candidate should not have defaulted is understandable since it has nexus with the object that the defaulter should not be allowed to administer the Co-operative Society. But if a person for whom the candidate stands surety commits a default, the candidate cannot be blamed and, therefore on this count, the bye-laws will have to be struck down since it does not further betterment of the co-operative movement, Shri Talekar further submitted that even in the case of Specified Co-operative Societies which have been assigned an important position in the co-operative movement ind is recognised so by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, there is no disqualification prescribed on these lines and is prescribed in the present Society. On this count, the submission made by the petitioners is that the order of the Returning Officer rejecting nomination papers of the petitioners, confirmed in appeal by learned Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, should be set aside and they be allowed to contest the election. (3) There is no difficulty in accepting the proposition that a bye-law cannot override the Rules or the Act. It is also well settled that the bye-laws have no statutory force. As was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Co-operative Central Bank Ltd and others v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others (AIR 1970 SC 245) :