wp2681.11.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2681 OF 2011.
PETITIONER: Pratap Nagarik Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd.,
through its Chairman Shri Praful Gopaldas
Agrawal, R/o Deshbandhu Ward, Gondia.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Collector,
Gondia.
ig 2. District Deputy Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Gondia, Distt.Gondia.
3. Gondia District Central Cooperative Bank
Ltd. through its Chairman, Gondia.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.A.S.Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.Bharti Dangre, Addl.Govt.Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mr.A.M.Ghare, Advocate for the respondent no.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
WRIT PETITION NO.2751 OF 2011.
PETITIONER: Vishwakarma Berozgar Bandhkam
Abhiyantriki Sdahakari Sanstha Ltd.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. District Collector,
Gondia District and Returning Officer
of Gondia District Central Co-operative Bank
Ltd. Gondia.
2. District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Gondia,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:25:02 :::
wp2681.11.odt 2
Distt.Gondia.
3. Gondia District Central Cooperative Bank
Ltd. Gondia, head office, Gondia.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.S.K.Tambde, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.Bharti Dangre, Addl.Govt.Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mr.A.M.Ghare, Advocate for the respondent no.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
WRIT PETITION NO.2747 OF 2011.
PETITIONER: Chatrapati Shivaji Gramin Bigar Sheti
Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Dawwa
having its Registration No.1336, Tq.Sadak
Arjuni, Distt.Gondia through its President
Shri Kishor Shriram Patle.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. District Collector,
Gondia District and Returning Officer
of Gondia District Central Co-operative Bank
Ltd. Gondia, Collectorate Compound,
Compound, Gondia, Tq. and Distt.Gondia.
2. District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Gondia,
Tq. and Distt.Gondia.
3. The District Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd.,
Gondia, Head Office Gondia, Tq. and
Distt.Gondia through its authorized officer.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.U.K.Bisen and S.N.Singh, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mrs.Bharti Dangre, Addl.Govt.Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mr.A.M.Ghare, Advocate for the respondent no.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:25:02 :::
wp2681.11.odt 3
WRIT PETITION NO.2750 OF 2011.
PETITIONER: Shram Safalya Bahuddeshiya Swayam
Rojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. District Collector,
Gondia District and Returning Officer
of Gondia District Central Co-operative Bank
Ltd. Gondia.
2. District Deputy Registrar,
ig Cooperative Societies, Gondia,
3. Gondia District Central Co-operative Bank
Ltd. Gondia, head office, Gondia.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.S.K.Tambde, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.Bharti Dangre, Addl.Govt.Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mr.A.M.Ghare, Advocate for the respondent no.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J.
DATED : 29th June, 2011.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable
forthwith and heard.
2. The above petitions involve a common question and
therefore are heard together and disposed of.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:25:02 :::
wp2681.11.odt 4
3. The facts in each of the above petitions are identical,
however, for convenience sake the facts in Writ Petition No.2681
of 2011 would be narrated.
4. The petitioner in the said petition is aggrieved by the
order dated 26/5/2011 passed by the Collector, Gondia by which
order the application filed by the petitioner for inclusion of its
name in the provisional voters’ list for elections to the respondent
no.3 – Society came to be rejected. The said rejection is on the
ground that in terms of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Specified
Co-operative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971, the
petitioner does not qualify for its name being included in the
provisional voters’ list as it has not completed three years
qualifying period prior to the cut off date. The rejection in case of
the other petitioners is also on the same ground.
The petitioner is a Credit Society which applied on
2/5/2006 for the membership to the respondent no.3 and
deposited an amount of Rs.1000/- for 10 shares and Re.1/- for
entry fee for which respondent no.3 has accordingly issued a
receipt. In so far as the membership is concerned, the respondent
no.3 did not take any decision within the stipulated period which
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:25:02 :::
wp2681.11.odt 5
constrained the petitioner to take recourse to Section 154 of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 by filing an
application before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Divisional
Joint Registrar by his order dated 20th April, 2006 directed the
respondent no.3 – Bank to admit the petitioner as a member. The
respondent no.3 – Bank challenged the said order before this court
vide Writ Petition No.2179/2007, which writ petition came to be
admitted, however, no interim relief was granted. It appears that
thereafter the respondent no.3 – Bank by passing a Resolution on
6th November, 2010 has conferred membership on the petitioner –
Society.
5. In view of the impending elections to the respondent
no.3 – Bank, the process of preparing a provisional voters’ list was
commenced. The petitioners applied for its inclusion on the basis
that the petitioner has invested its funds in the shares of the
respondent no.3 – Bank on 2/5/2006. The said application came
to be rejected, as indicated above, by the Collector, Gondia on the
ground that the petitioner did not have the requisite period of
membership prior to the cut off date. It is this order, which is
impugned in all the above petitions.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:25:02 :::
wp2681.11.odt 6
6. The principal submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner Shri Jaiswal is based on the fact that the petitioner has
invested its funds in the shares of the respondent no.3 – Bank on
2/5/2006 and if that date is taken into consideration, the
petitioner qualifies for being included in the provisional list of
voters in terms of Section 27(3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in
2006(5) Mh.L.J.325 in the matter of Dudhganga Vikas Seva
Sanstha Maryadit ..vs.. Distt.Collector, Kolhapur and ors.
wherein it has been held that any new member of a federal society
shall be eligible to vote in the affairs of the federal society only
after the completion of the period of three years from the date of
its investing any part of its fund in the share of such federal
society. The Apex Court was seized with the issues whether there
was any inconsistency between Section 27 and Rule 4 of the
Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Election to
Committees Rules, 1971. On an interpretation of the said
provisions, the Apex Court was of the view that there is no
inconsistency as Section 27(3) operates in the field of laying down
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:25:02 :::
wp2681.11.odt 7
the eligibility condition of a new member of a federal society to
vote in the affairs of a federal society and Rule 4 only relates to
preparation of a provisional voters list. It would be apposite to
reproduce paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment in Dudhganga Vikas
Seva Sanstha Maryadit (supra), which are relevant.
7. A mere reading of section 27 makes it explicit
that a society, which has invested any part of its
fund in the shares of a federal society, may
appoint one of its members to vote on its behalf
in the affairs of the federal society. Proviso to
sub-section (3) of section 27 of the Act lays down
the condition of eligibility which is to the effect
that any new member of a federal society shall be
eligible to vote in the affairs of the federal society
only after the completion of the period of three
years from the date of its investment any part of
its fund in the shares of such federal society. We
may also note sub-section (3-A) of section 27 of
the Act which relates to an individual member of
a society. In his case it is provided that he shall
not be eligible for voting in the affairs of that
society for a period of two years from the date of
his enrolment as member of such society. The
legislature has consciously employed in sub-
sections (3) and (3-A) words which are of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:25:02 :::
wp2681.11.odt 8
significance. In the proviso to sub-section (3) the
period of 3 years is reckoned from the date of the
society investing any part of its fund in the shares
of a federal society, whereas sub-section (3-A)
provides that the period of 2 years shall be
computed from the date of enrolment of an
individual as a member of such federal society.
8. Having regard to the plain words used in
section 27(3) of the Act, the appellant Society
having invested its fund in the shares of Kolhapur
District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
respondent no.2 herein on 30/12/2002, it
became eligible to vote in the affairs of the
federal society after 30/12/2005. We are
informed that the date of investment by the
appellant Society and its enrolment as a member
of the federal society is the same, namely,
30/12/2002. Ex facie, therefore, in terms of
section 27(3) of the Act, in April, 2006 when the
election was due to be held, the appellant Society
was entitled to appoint one of its members to
vote on its behalf in the affairs of the federal
society respondent no.2, having completed the
period of 3 yeas from the date of its investment in
share of respondent 2 Society on 30/12/2005.
The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Jaiswal submitted that
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:25:02 :::
wp2681.11.odt 9
in view of the judgment in Dudhganga Vikas Seva Sanstha (supra)
the issue is no more res integra, in so far as the right of a member
to vote on the basis of investment of its fund in the shares of the
Society is concerned.
7. Per contra, it is submitted by Mrs.Bharti Dangre, the
learned Additional Government Pleader and Shri Ghare, the
learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 – Society that the
receipt on which much emphasis is being laid is not a share
certificate and it is merely a receipt that the petitioner has
deposited the said amount of Rs.1000/- towards share and Re.1/-
by way of entry fee. The learned counsel further submitted that
the facts in the case before the Apex Court were different, in as
much as, the date of investment and date of membership was one
and the same i.e. 30/12/2002. Whereas in the instant case the
date of investment is 2/5/2006 and the membership was granted
on 20/7/2009 and therefore, the said judgment would have to be
read in the context of the facts of the present case. In my view, the
said submission of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot
be countenanced. The Apex Court in Dudhganga Vikas Seva
(supra) has in terms held that the date of investment is the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:25:02 :::
wp2681.11.odt 10
material aspect and if period of three years is completed from the
said date then the Society which is desirous of being included in
the provisional list of voters would have to be so included. In view
of the fact that the Apex Court has held that Section 27 lays down
the eligibility condition of a new member of a federal Society to
vote in the affairs of a federal Society whereas Rule 4 only relates
to preparation of a voters list therefore the difference in dates, in
my view would make no material difference, as Section 27(3) of
the Act lays down the eligibility condition for a new member of a
federal society to vote in the affairs of the said Society. The fact
that the respondent no.3 – Society has chosen to pass a Resolution
conferring membership of petitioner/Society only on 27th July,
2009, therefore, would be of no consequence.
8. As the impugned order discloses the Collector, Gondia
oblivious of Section 27(3) of the Act, has rejected the application
of each of the petitioners in the above petitions solely on the
ground that they do not have the requisite period of membership
prior to the cut off date for being qualified for inclusion in the
provisional list of voters. In that view of the matter, the impugned
order dated 26/5/2011 in each of the above petitions is required to
be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The respondent no.1 –
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:25:02 :::
wp2681.11.odt 11
Collector is directed to include the names of the petitioners in the
final list of voters, as by an interim order dated 16/6/2011 the
Collector was already directed to include their names in the
provisional list. Rule is accordingly made absolute. Parties to bear
their own costs.
JUDGE
chute
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:25:02 :::
