BALLAV SINGH YADAV Vs. KALYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of both W.A. No. 195/08 and W.A. No. 221/08. In both the Writ Appeals filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, arising out of the common order dated 28 -3 -2008 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P. No. 1369/08 common question of law is involved.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that one Kalyan Singh filed Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents in conducting elections of the District Cooperative Krishi Evam Gramin Vikas Bank, Shivpuri (for short "the Bank"). The contention of the petitioner in the Writ Petition was that while conducting elections of the Bank, the percentage of reservation of delegates is determined to the extent of 90%, which is more than constitutionally permissible percentage of reservation of 50%.

(3.) SHRI R.D. Jain, Sr. Advocate with Shri M.P. Raghuvanshi, Advocate appearing for appellant in Writ Appeal no. 195/08 and for respondent No. 1 in Writ Appeal No. 221/08, vehemently submitted that under the bye -laws of the Society as well as under the provisions of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "Act of 1960") there is no provision for providing any reservation for the constitution of smaller body, i.e., the general body of the society, for which delegates shall be elected and those delegates thereafter shall elect the members of the Board of Directors/Committee. It was argued that there is no provision for constituting a smaller body by following principle of reservation, therefore the learned Writ Court has committed illegality in setting aside the elections of the Bank. Per contra Shri Vivek Jain, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 W.P. No. 195/08 and respondent No. 2 in W.A. No. 221/08 supported the judgment and his contention is that even if there is no provision for reservation for the constitution of smaller body, even then with the help of Section 48 -B, Sub -clause (3) read with Rule 43 of the M.P. Co -operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act of 1960") and M.P. Co -operative Societies Rules, 1962 (for short "the Rules of 1962"), the provisions of reservation are applicable and he heavily placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench in the case of Anand Manohar Tambe (supra).