2014 (11) TMI 1008 - SC - Indian Laws

Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act of 1961 - Whether Rule 3-A of the Rules introduced by the amendment dated 10.08.1987 could be applied to the societies bye-laws which provide for a single constituency? - Held that - Democracy is government by the people. It is a continual participative operation not a cataclysmic periodic exercise. The little man in his multitude marking his vote at the poll does a social audit of his Parliament plus political choice of this proxy. Although the full flower of participative Government rarely blossoms the minimum credential of popular Government is appeal to the people after every term for a renewal of confidence. So we have adult franchise and general elections as constitutional compulsions. The right of election is the very essence of the constitution (Junius). It needs little argument to hold that the heart of the Parliamentary system is free and fair elections periodically held based on adult franchise although social and economic democracy may demand much more. For the reasons stated supra we do not find any reasons whatsoever to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders of the High Court. It is needless to make observation that the State government and its officers could not give effect to the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules for some time on account of which some of the societies have challenged the impugned provisions and Rules before the High Court even after litigation was concluded by the Division Bench at one stage the State and its officers have not implemented the impugned provisions and Rules without any valid reasons. The members of the specified societies in the State have a right to elect their true representatives to represent them as Managing Committee or Board members of the District Co-operative Societies and other allied societies after de-limitation of the constituency/ constituencies and therefore we direct them to see that the impugned provisions and Rules must be implemented forthwith without further delay and submit compliance report within 8 weeks from the date of report of the copy of this order. - Decided against the appellants.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Rule 3-A(8) of the Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies Election to Committee Rules of 1982.
2. Whether Rule 3-A(8) could be applied to societies whose bye-laws provide for a single constituency.
3. Whether the scheme of the Rules permits specified societies having a single constituency more than one seat for one constituency.
4. Whether the Collector has jurisdiction to make an order for delimitation of constituencies in the absence of any proceeding undertaken in accordance with Section 14 of the Act.
5. Whether delimitation of constituencies under Rule 3-A can only be territory-wise or based upon objects and activities of member societies or classes of individual members.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Rule 3-A(8):
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 3-A(8) of the Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies Election to Committee Rules of 1982. The Court noted that the Rule was framed under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act of 1961 and subsequent amendments. The Rule was aimed at ensuring fair representation by delimiting constituencies geographically. The Court emphasized that the Rule did not conflict with any provisions of the Act or the Constitution.

2. Applicability of Rule 3-A(8) to Societies with Single Constituency Bye-laws:
The Court held that Rule 3-A(8) applies to all specified cooperative societies whose area of operation exceeds one village, regardless of whether their bye-laws provide for a single constituency. The Court stated that the power conferred upon the Collector to delimit constituencies ensures that the number of constituencies equals the number of seats, excluding reserved seats. This ensures fair representation and is in line with the statutory mandate.

3. Scheme of the Rules and Multiple Seats for One Constituency:
The Court clarified that the scheme of the Rules does not permit specified societies to have more than one seat for a single constituency. The bye-laws of societies must conform to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. If the bye-laws are not amended to align with Rule 3-A(8), the Collector has the authority to delimit constituencies to ensure compliance.

4. Collector's Jurisdiction for Delimitation of Constituencies:
The Court affirmed that the Collector has the jurisdiction to delimit constituencies under sub-rule (9) of Rule 3-A, even in the absence of proceedings under Section 14 of the Act. The power granted to the Collector is independent and is meant to ensure that elections are conducted fairly and democratically. The Court emphasized that this power must be exercised prior to the publication of the voters' list.

5. Basis for Delimitation of Constituencies:
The Court held that delimitation of constituencies under Rule 3-A should be based on geographical or territorial considerations. The Rule aims to ensure that constituencies are divided in a manner that provides fair representation to all members of the society. The Court rejected the argument that delimitation could be based on the objects and activities of member societies or classes of individual members.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the impugned judgment and orders of the Gujarat High Court. The Court directed the respondents to hold elections as per sub-rules (8) and (9) of Rule 3-A after delimitation of constituencies by the Collector. The Court emphasized the importance of democratic representation and the need for societies to amend their bye-laws to comply with the statutory provisions. The appeals were dismissed with no costs.