SAHYADRI SAHAKARI BANK LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Society is challenging the vires of sub-section (2) of section 22 and sub-section (1 A) of Section 23 of Maharashtra Co-operative societies Act, 1960. These sub-sections were amended by Maharashtra Act no. 20/86 and came into operation with effect from May 12, 1986. The sub-sections which are under challenge read as under :

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 is a Society registered under the Maharashtra co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is carrying on banking business as contemplated by provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The minister for Co-operation introduced Amending Bill No. 28 of i985 in the legislative Assembly and submitted a report setting out the reasons why the amendment was necessary. The Bill was accepted by the Legislature and the amending Act No. XX of 1986 came to be passed. The present petition was filed to challenge the vires of this amending Section and the petition was admitted and operation of the amended Section was stayed on June 19, 1986.

(3.) DR. Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the amendment of the two sub-sections is in contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 (1) (c) and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The learned counsel urged that prescribing that the applicant for membership would be deemed to have been admitted as member of the Society, in case no communication is received from the Soeiety would cause serious prejudice to the working of the Society. It was also urged by the learned counsel that provisions which enable the Registrar to accept the application and demand the Society to dispose of the application within stipulated period is not valid. We are unable to appreciate any merit in this submissions. The requirement for amendment of the Section arose because the experience disclosed that several Societies were withholding consideration and process of applications for admission as members of co-operative Societies and reasons for withholding the applications were numerous, like postponing the consideration of the application till the election is over or keeping out a group of persons who are likely to oppose to the existing managing board. Realising the hardship suffered by such applicants, the Government decided to step in and provide that if decision is not taken on the application within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application, then the person would be deemed to have been admitted as member. The provision is very salutory and we do not find how it will operate harshly. The State Legislature also realised that the Society may decline even to accept the application and therefore provided that in such cases the applicant may directly approach the Registrar and the Registrar would forward the application to the Society and ,then the Society is bound to examine the application within the stipulated period. In our judgment, the purpose sought to be achieved by the amendment is extremely healthy and would advance the cause of co-operation.