1960 (1) TMI 44 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar under Section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act.
2. Validity and nature (mandatory or directory) of Clause (4) of the election rules.
3. Applicability and interpretation of Bye-law 33-A.
4. Validity of the nomination of P.K. Muthuvelappa Goundar.
5. Availability of alternative remedies.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar under Section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act:

The primary issue was whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction under Section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act to adjudicate on the dispute concerning the nomination of a candidate. The court examined the scope of Section 51, which allows for disputes touching the business of a registered society to be referred to the Registrar for decision. The court referenced a Full Bench decision that held disputes relating to the election of directors of a Co-operative Bank as disputes touching the business of the society. The court concluded that the nomination stage is part of the election process and thus falls within the ambit of Section 51. Therefore, the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

2. Validity and nature (mandatory or directory) of Clause (4) of the election rules:

The court analyzed whether Clause (4) of the election rules, which prescribes a time limit for the return of delegates, was mandatory or directory. The clause stated that delegates' names must be submitted by a specific date. The court referenced various legal principles and precedents to distinguish between mandatory and directory provisions. It concluded that Clause (4) was directory, not mandatory, as it was intended for the orderly conduct of elections and did not prescribe any penalty for non-compliance. The court emphasized that the absence of a forfeiture clause in the current rules, which existed in previous versions, indicated that non-compliance should not result in the loss of voting rights.

3. Applicability and interpretation of Bye-law 33-A:

Bye-law 33-A provides the Board of Directors with the authority to revise the list of members eligible to vote 30 days before the election. The Deputy Registrar had ruled that this bye-law could not override the election rules. The court, however, held that Bye-law 33-A should be read harmoniously with the election rules. Since Clause (4) of the election rules was deemed directory, Bye-law 33-A was applicable, allowing for the revision of the voters' list even after the initial deadline.

4. Validity of the nomination of P.K. Muthuvelappa Goundar:

The court examined whether the nomination of P.K. Muthuvelappa Goundar was valid, given that his name was submitted after the prescribed date. The court found that the Central Bank had the authority to revise the voters' list and include his name, as per Bye-law 33-A. The President of the Central Bank had accepted his nomination, and the court ruled that this acceptance was valid. The Deputy Registrar's order canceling the nomination was found to be based on an erroneous interpretation of the election rules.

5. Availability of alternative remedies:

The respondent argued that the petitioner should have sought a remedy through revision to the Registrar under Section 51(5) of the Act before approaching the court. The court acknowledged that while the availability of alternative remedies could influence the decision to grant a writ, it does not preclude the court from issuing one. Given that the court had already examined the matter in detail, it chose to proceed with the writ petition rather than dismissing it on the grounds of an alternative remedy.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the Deputy Registrar's order canceling the nomination of P.K. Muthuvelappa Goundar. It held that the nomination was valid and that the Deputy Registrar had erred in law. The court confirmed the rule nisi and made it absolute, with no order as to costs.