BABURAO CHANAPPA CHAKOTE Vs. BRIHMADEV KRISHNAT MANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 7th April 1979 passed by the Additional Commissioner (namely, the 5th respondent) allowing an election petition filed by respondents I and 2 and setting aside the 1st petitioner's election and declaring the 1st respondent to have been elected to the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent Bank.

(2.) The 4th respondent-Bank is a specified society within the meaning of sec 73G of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societ'es Act, 1960 (referred to hereafter as "the Societies Act"). Elections for constituting the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent- Bank were held in November 1978 in accordance with Chapter XI-A of the Societies Act read with Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies lections to Committees Rules, 1971 (referred to hereafter as "the 1971 Election Rules"). The 3rd respondent, namely, the Collector of Sholapur, was the Returning Officer. The 1st petitioner represented the 2nd petitioner- society in the aforesaid election of the 4th respondent-Bank. The 2nd petitioner is a Co-operative Society within the meaning of the Societies Act, its area of operation being in Sholapur city. The 2nd petitioner is a member of the 4th respondent-Bank. The name of the 2nd petitioner-society was entered in the voters' list at Serial No. 88, with the 1st petitioner shown as the delegate of the 2nd petitioner society. The provisional list, prepared in accordance with rule 4 of the 1971 Election Rules was displayed on the 4th respondent's notice board and was duly notified before 7th July 1978 on the basis of the position prevailing on 30th June 1978. 10th July 1978 was the date fixed for inviting objections in accordance with rule 4 (2), No. objections were raised by anyone. The provisional list as finalised in accordance with rule 6, was displayed in accordance with the provision of rule 7 on the requeisite notice boards of the 4th respondent-Bank and the Collector, namely, the 4th respondent. Polling took place on 18 November 1978. The 1st and 2nd respondents had also contested the election. The 1st petitioner secured 87 votes and the 1st respondent secured 80 votes. The 1st petitioner was declared elected. On 12th December 1978, respondents 1 and 2 filed an Election Petition No. 7 of 1978 for setting aside the 1st petitioner's election. That petition was resisted by the petitioners. On 7th April 1979, the 5th respondent, namely, the Additional' Commissioner passed his impugned order, setting aside the 1st petitioner's election on the ground that the 1st petitioner was representing the 2nd petitioner-society which was not an affiliated: society within the meaning of bye-law 34 of the 4th respondent-Bank, and declaring the 1st respondent duly elected to the Board of Directors of 4th respondent Bank. Hence the present petition.

(3.) The finding of the 5th respondent was assailed by Mr. Savant, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on the ground that the 1st petitioner was eligible to be a candidate for directorship of the 4th respondent-Bank, inasmuch as the 2nd petitioner was an affiliated society within the purview of bye-law 34 of the 4th respondent-Bank. On the other band, it was urged on behalf of the 1st respondent that the 2nd petitioner does notfall within any of the categories set out in bye law34 of the 4th responpent Bank; that only credit societies are entitled to contest the election under bye-law 34; and that the 2nd petitioner not being a credit society but being a consumer society unconcerned with credit, was, therefore, eneligible to contest the elections and hence could not appoint the 1st petitioner as its delegate. Reliance was placed on rule 10 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules 1961 (referred to hereafter as 'the 1961 Rules"), in support of the contention that only those co-operative Banks or resource societies alone fell within the purview of bye-law 34, and that except the last two, no other society could possibly be a credit society.