A.G. QURESHI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the President of a Cooperative Society. The Managing Committee of the Society was superseded on 20.2.1986 under section 53 (1) of the M.P. Co -operative Societies Act 1960 (for short the Act). By virtue of sub -sec.(12) of section 53, super session leads to non -eligibility of members of the superseded committee for contesting election as member of the Committee of the Society for a period of five years (enhanced to seven years by M.P. Act No.25 of 1988). Election was held for the Managing Committee on 12.6.1986. Petitioner filed nomination and that was rejected under Annexure -4 order in view of Sec. 53 (12) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner ha s filed the writ petition challenging the vires of section 53 (12) of the Act, as also the order Annexure -4.

(2.) THE period of disqualification contemplated under section 53 (12) of the Act has · expired. Therefore, the petition has he come practical1y infructuous. Never -the less we would like to alert the State about the objection to section 53 (12) of the Act. The effect of section 53 (12) of the Act is that if a Committee is superseded under sub -sec. (1) of section 53 of the Act, all the members of the Committee become ineligible for contesting election for a particular period. There may he a case where the ground for super -session relates to all members of the Committee. There may he a case where the Managing Committee is negligent in or unwilling to perform if duties and its acts which are prejudicial to the Society or members are in violation of the Act and the rules on account of the stand taken by majority of members and in spite of opposition of minority members. There may be a case where a member being dissatisfied with the functioning of the Society, may bring the State of affairs to the notice of the Registrar and the Managing Committee is ultimately superseded. Under sub -sec. (12) of Sec. 53 even such members who resisted the malfunctioning of the Society or members who invoked the jurisdiction of the Registrar, suffer ineligibility. Whether the provision as it is, could be regarded arbitrary, is a moot point. We would like the Slate to examine this aspect and see if any amendment is necessary.

(3.) THERE shall be no direction as 10 costs. Security deposited, if any, will he refunded.