MADHAV SANTRAM PATIL Vs. COLLECTOR LATUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) After the Revenue District of Osmanabad was bifurcated and the new districts of Osmanabad and Latur were reconstituted, the Government of Maharashtra by virtue of the power vested in it under Section 180 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, issued a notification published in the Gazette, dated 9th August 1984, reorganising the District Central Co-operative Bank and dividing it into two separate District Central Co-operative Banks, known as the Latur and Osmanabad District Central Co-operative Banks. By the same notification, the Government of Maharashtra appointed an Interim Committee of Management to manage the affairs of the newly constituted Osmanabad and Latur District Central Co-operative Banks. On 18th October 1985 the Collector of Bombay and the District Election Officer, Greater Bombay, wrote letters to the Collector of Latur and Osmanabad, as per the provisions of Section 144-C (2) of the Act to arrange for sending nominees on the Board of Directors of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., before the first meeting of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank is held to elect the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank. The Collectors of Osmanabad and Latur called a meeting of the Interim Committee to elect their nominee on the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank. Accordingly a meeting was held on 30th October 1985 so far as the Latur District Central Co-operative Bank is concerned and Shri Madhav Santram Patil was unanimously elected as a nominee of the said Bank on the apex Bank. Similarly, a meeting of the Osmanabad District Central Co-operative Bank was held on 2nd November 1985 and Shri Madhukarrao Deorao Chavan was elected as a nominee of the said Bank on the apex Bank. After these elections were held, the Government of Maharashtra sent a letter to the Collector of Bombay, dated 24th March 1986 directing him not to notify the names of these nominees. In fact, the said letter was written to the Collector of Bombay in respect of seven Banks, which included these two Banks. It is this order of the Government which is challenged in the present Writ Petitions on various grounds.

(3.) Shri Madkholkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended before us that this letter written by the Secretary of the Agriculture and Co-operation Department, Government of Maharashtra, is wholly unauthorised and is ultra vires of his power. Once the election process is completed and a nominee is elected by the District Central Co-operative Bank concerned, the election process comes to an end. Thereafter the State Government had no power to throttle down the election process by issuing such unauthorised insiructions to the Collector of Bombay, who is not at all concerned with this election process. He also contended that even on the merits of the matter, the Interim Committee appointed to manage the affairs of the District Co-operative Bank was full, competent to elect its nominee under Bye-law No. 26 of the Bye-laws. As per the provisions of law, which include Rule 94 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971, elections of nominees are to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Bye-laws of the Society, though under the control of the Collector or the Returning Officer appointed by him. In the present cases, the Collector of Osmanabad and the Collector of Latur was the concerned Collector under whose control the elections were to be held. Accordingly the Collector held the elections and also declared its results. This declaration of the results is final and it is also not challenged by anybody by filing an'election dispute under Section 144-T of the Act. Once such a finality is reached, the State Government or the Collector of Bombay cannot set at naught these elections. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, as the elections are held in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, they are perfectly legal and valid. Hence the order issued by the Government on 24th March, 1986 is wholly illegal.