PURUSHOTTAM AND ANOTHER Vs. GOPALRAO AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 2 is a Non-agricultural Credit and Industrial Co-operative Society in the district of Amravati and the petitioner No. 1 is member thereof. This Society is formed of the employees of the respondent No. 5 Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank, Ltd., Amravati, which is also a Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner No. 1 is an employee of the respondent No. 5.

(2.) Elections to the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 5 were held on 27-9-1966 and according to the constitution of the Board of Directors, the Non-agricultural Credit and Industrial Co-operative Societies in the district were to elect one Director to represent them. That is provided by the bye-law No. 25(1)(b) of the Bye-laws framed for the respondent No. 5 Co-operative Society. The petitioner No. 1 representing the petitioner No. 2 Society of which he was a member, filed his nomination paper for the seat of a Director and he was opposed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for the said seat. In that election, the petitioner No. 1 was elected for the office of the Director of the respondent No. 5 Bank. To the nomination of the petitioner No. 1, the respondent No. 1 Gopalrao had raised an objection before the Returning Officer on 7-9-1966 to the effect that he was disqualified to be a candidate for the Directorship of the respondent No. 5 on the ground that he was an employee of the respondent No. 5. This objection was overruled by the Returning Officer and the petitioner No. 1 after the result of the election was declared as duly elected to the office of the Director.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 thereafter raised a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 raising the same objection. The Nominee of the Registrar overruled the objection of the respondent and held that the petitioner No. 1 as the representative of the petitioner No. 2 was validly elected. This order of the Registrar's Nominee was challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, Bombay. The Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, respondent No. 6 in this petition, set aside the order of the Registrar's Nominee and declared the election of the petitioner No. 1 to be invalid on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 being an employee of the Bank which is also a registered Society was incompetent to get himself elected to the office of the Director. The order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, Bombay, is challenged by the petitioners by this writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution.