2004 (4) TMI 647 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of special provisions for election of officers of specified societies u/s 144Y of the Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act, 1960 - Validity of election process for the Chairman of a cooperative society; Grant of interim relief in a writ petition challenging election process - HELD THAT - The present one is a case where we are fully satisfied that a foolproof case for the grant of interim relief was made out in favour of the petitioner in the High Court on the basis of the material available before the Court. There was only one nomination filed which was found to be in order and was not withdrawn. The time appointed for filing nominations, scrutiny and withdrawal was over. There was no contest. Nothing had remained to be done at the meeting of the Committee which was to be convened only for the purpose of declaring the result. Nothing was to be put to vote. Holding of a meeting was only for the purpose of performing the formality of declaring the appellant as elected. In fact the election programme, as notified, itself contemplated the meeting at 1400 hours for voting and counting 'if felt necessary'. The provision as to quorum lost all its significance. It did not make any difference whether there were eight directors to hear the declaration of result or just four or even none. May be the directors having learnt of there being a single valid nomination and that too not withdrawn, also knew that the result of the election was a fait accompli, and therefore, did not want to take the trouble of even coming to the venue of the meeting. Unless something was brought to the notice of the Court either by way of material in the shape of documents or affidavits or even by way of a plea raised before the Court which could come in the way of the relief being granted to the writ petitioner, in the case of such a nature, the interim relief ought to have been granted. The writ petitioner-appellant is right in submitting that the election was for a period of one year out of which a little less than half of the time has already elapsed and in the absence of interim relief being granted to him there is nothing which would survive for being given to him by way of relief at the end of the final hearing. It is pertinent to note that in spite of the respondents having been noticed by this Court none has made appearance excepting the State of Maharashtra and the State too has not chosen to file any counter affidavit. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.1.2004, in so far as it rejects the prayer for the grant of interim relief, is set aside. The prayer for the grant of interim relief as made by the writ petitioner/appellant is allowed. The respondents are directed to announce the result of election in accordance with the election programme dated 11.12.2003 post haste and act accordingly. The High Court while deciding the writ petition on merits would obviously do so on the basis of pleadings and documents produced and submissions made before it; the High Court need not feel inhibited by anything said in this order.

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of special provisions for election of officers of specified societies u/s 144Y of the Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act, 1960; Validity of election process for the Chairman of a cooperative society; Grant of interim relief in a writ petition challenging election process.

Interpretation of special provisions for election of officers: The judgment dealt with the application of Section 144Y of the Act, which makes special provision for the election of officers of specified societies falling under Section 73G. The relevant bye-laws of the society were also considered, specifying the process for electing the Chairman annually. The case involved the election process for the Chairman of a cooperative society, where the appellant was the sole nominated candidate for the position.

Validity of election process: The election process for the Chairman was scheduled to be held on 14.11.2003, presided over by the Collector or a nominated officer. However, during the meeting on 11.12.2003, only four out of eight Directors were present, leading to the meeting being stayed due to lack of quorum. The appellant, being the sole nominee, sought to be declared as the Chairman, but no decision was made. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Returning Officer and seeking completion of the election process.

Grant of interim relief in a writ petition: The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking to quash the order of the Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer and to resume the election process from where it had stopped. The High Court directed a fresh election process to commence from the beginning, leading to the appellant seeking interim relief to suspend the proposed election. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, granted interim relief to the appellant, directing the announcement of the election result in accordance with the original election program dated 11.12.2003.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order rejecting the prayer for interim relief. The Court directed the respondents to announce the election result promptly and act accordingly. The judgment emphasized the importance of granting interim relief in exceptional cases where the circumstances warrant immediate action to prevent injustice.