9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the court while exercising its power under Article 226 could give a direction contrary to the statutory mandate. 2. Whether such an order is liable to judicial review by an independent proceeding under Article 226. 3. Under what circumstances and to what extent such judicial review can be conducted. Summary: Issue 1: Direction Contrary to Statutory Mandate The court examined whether it could issue directions contrary to statutory mandates while exercising its power under Article 226. The case involved the election process of a specified Cooperative Society under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The term of the society's office was due to expire, and the District Collector initiated the election process. The government postponed the election, and subsequent writ petitions led to directions for holding elections based on a provisional voter list as of June 30, 1992, contrary to the final list published on December 17, 1991. The court found that the provisional list should be prepared for the year in which the general election is due, and only members as of June 30 of the preceding year should be included, per Rule 4(1). Issue 2: Judicial Review of Orders The court considered whether the order directing the use of the June 30, 1992 list was subject to judicial review. It was alleged that the Chairman of the society colluded with others to enroll 2000 new members to influence the election. The court noted that the final list published on December 17, 1991, was not challenged and should have been used. The court held that the consent order obtained through collusion and fraud was contrary to the statutory mandate and thus subject to judicial review. Issue 3: Circumstances and Extent of Judicial Review The court highlighted that collusion in judicial proceedings, as defined in Nagubai Animal v. B. Shamma Rao, involves a secret arrangement to obtain a judicial decision for a sinister purpose. The court found that the consent order was collusive and fraudulent, obtained by abusing the court's process. The court emphasized its duty to correct such orders to maintain respect for the judicial process and rule of law. It was held that the High Court should have modified the order to conform to Rule 4(1) and that the election process based on the June 30, 1992 list was illegal. Conclusion: The Supreme Court declared the election process conducted by the District Deputy Registrar based on the June 30, 1992 list illegal. The final voters list published on December 17, 1991, was deemed valid. The court directed the authorities to conduct the election in accordance with the Rules, consistent with this order. The appeal was allowed with costs imposed on the non-contesting respondents.
|
