KRISHNA GANPATRAO KAMDI Vs. ILADHAR LAXMAN PATHODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a settled cannon of interpretative law that recital or preamble of an Act is key for opening the meaning and intent of an Act. Equally true it is that preamble of the statute can neither expand nor control the scope and application of the substantive provision particularly when it is clear and explicit. The legislature with a view to provide for orderly development of co-operative movement in the State of Maharashtra and in accordance with the relevant directive principle of the State policy enumerated in the Constitution of India considered it expedient to consolidate and enact the laws relating to the Co-operative Society in the State. The Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 in its application to State of Maharashtra was repealed and by a new enactment The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) was enacted. This Act was for the development of the co-operative movement which was expected to be in an orderly manner. The said Act was intended to provide greater freedom, free and fair democratic process and to regulate business and management of the societies in accordance with the prescribed standards with inbuilt check and balances indicated under the various provisions therein. Chapter VII of the said Act relates to the management of the societies. Sections 73-1A, 73-1B, 73-1C and 73-1D regulate the requirement and conduct of elections in relation to committees of notified societies. Section 73-A deals with disqualification for being a designated officer. Chapter XI-A deals with the elections of committees and officers of certain other societies. Under that chapter, the provisions prescribe how the election is to be conducted, disqualification of membership and removal, as a result of disqualification or corrupt practices, from such bodies. Suffice it to note that the entire process of management and election disputes are bound to arise in the affairs of the society.

(2.) In terms of Section 91, any dispute touching the constitution and election of the committees or its officers, other than elections of the committees of specified societies including its officers, conduct of general meetings etc., is to be referred by any of the parties to the dispute or by a federal society to which the society is affiliated or by a creditor of the society, to a co-operative Court, provided the parties are one which are indicated under Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 91(1). The provisions of Section 91 open with non obstante Clause and give precedence to the law over all other laws for the time being in force. The Co-operative Court gets jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputes referred to it in terms of Section 91-A and has to exercise jurisdiction over whole of the State or over any part thereof as may be notified. The Section uses the expression any dispute touching the constitution and includes any dispute relating to election of the committee. The expression has very wide implication and far reaching ramification. This expression has been subjected to judicial interpretation and in the case of Rambhau v. President Vinkar Co-op. Society,, a Full Bench of this Court held that any dispute means any dispute which the co-operative Court is competent to try and decide. It has also been held that it would mean a dispute arising out of the provisions of the said Act and not a dispute which would arise independently of the provisions of the said Act. Even if a dispute is between a member and the society about a matter which does not arise out of the provisions contained in the said Act, it will not fall within the jurisdiction of the co-operative Court. On a plain reading of Section 91, it is contemplated that two conditions must be satisfied (1) the dispute must be one touching the constitution, elections of office-bearers, conduct of general meeting, management or business of the society and (2) that both the parties to the suit must be one or the other as mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-clause (1) of Section 91. These two conditions are conjunctive and not disjunctive.

(3.) Where any dispute in relation to election of the society is raised, a pertinent question that normally would fall for consideration in such cases is whether the election has been materially affected by the violation or other act complained of. The learned Single Judge of this Court felt that there was an element of conflict of views in the different judgments of this Court and persuaded by the divergent views, the learned Judge, vide his order dated 6th November, 2006 while declining to concur with the view expressed by another Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bhagwat Sojanaji Sonawane and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., referred the matter to a larger Bench. We feel that it is not necessary for us to refer to the facts of the or the controversy arising as they have been appropriately summed up in the order of reference dated 6th November, 2006 which reads as under: