2001 (3) TMI 976 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether names of the societies and individuals who were already admitted as members before coming into force of the said Act, that is, before the 23rd August, 2000, could be included in the voters list? Held that - The requirement of the completion of the period of three years from the date of its investing any part of its fund in the shares of such federal society would apply only to those societies which became member society of the federal society after 20th August, 2000. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. Even if there remained any doubt in the matter of interpreting the proviso, the Ordinance that has been promulgated on 27th February, 2001, called the Maharashtra Ordinance No. X of 2001, after the first proviso to sub-section (3), a second proviso had been inserted, has removed any doubt or controversy in as much as it has been indicated therein that the first proviso will not apply to the member society which has invested any part of its fund in the share of the federal society before the commencement of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2000 dated 20th August, 2000. The aforesaid Ordinance also has been given a retrospective effect, to be effective from 23rd August, 2000. The Ordinance having been held to be valid by us as stated above, the so-called prohibition contained in the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27 will not apply to all those societies which have already become members of the federal society prior to 23rd August, 2000. On the wake of the aforesaid the Appeal thus fails Each party, however, to pay and bear its own costs.

Issues Involved:
1. Urgency and jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
2. Validity of the voter list and its finalization.
3. Legislative malice and abuse of legislative power.
4. Justiciability and judicial review of legislative actions.
5. Interpretation of the amended proviso to Section 27(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
6. Validity and implications of the Maharashtra Ordinance No. X of 2001.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Urgency and Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court granted leave to hear the Special Leave Petition due to the urgency of the election process of the Kolhapur District Central Co-operative Bank in Maharashtra. The urgency was prompted by the Bombay High Court's decision, which upheld the finalized voter list as of June 30, 2000, despite the amendment to Section 27(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, enacted on August 23, 2000. The Supreme Court noted the promulgation of Maharashtra Ordinance No. X of 2001 during the appeal's pendency, which necessitated an expedited hearing.

2. Validity of the Voter List and its Finalization:
The Bombay High Court had ruled that the voter list finalized on June 30, 2000, was valid despite the subsequent amendment to Section 27(3). The High Court reasoned that the amendment could not retroactively affect societies eligible to vote as of June 30, 2000. The Supreme Court was tasked with examining whether the amendment and the subsequent ordinance could invalidate the finalized voter list.

3. Legislative Malice and Abuse of Legislative Power:
The appellant's counsel argued that the promulgation of the ordinance constituted "legislative malice," implying that it was an abuse of legislative power aimed at achieving a political end. The counsel contended that the ordinance was a fraudulent use of legislative power to manipulate the election process. The Supreme Court examined the statement of objects and reasons for the ordinance to determine if there was any legislative malice.

4. Justiciability and Judicial Review of Legislative Actions:
The Supreme Court discussed the doctrine of separation of powers, emphasizing that each organ of the state (judiciary, executive, and legislature) operates within its own sphere. The Court noted that while there is a general reluctance to interfere with legislative actions, it can do so if there is a manifestly unauthorized exercise of power. The Court referred to several precedents, including the Privy Council's decision in Liyanage v. Reginam and the Supreme Court's decision in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, to underscore the judiciary's role in reviewing legislative actions in specific circumstances.

5. Interpretation of the Amended Proviso to Section 27(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960:
The Supreme Court examined the language of the amended proviso, which restricted voting rights to new member societies only after three years from their admission. The appellant argued that the term "new member society" should apply to societies admitted before the amendment's enactment. The Court, however, interpreted the term "new member society" to mean societies admitted after the amendment's effective date (August 23, 2000). The Court emphasized that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary, or popular sense unless such construction leads to absurdity.

6. Validity and Implications of the Maharashtra Ordinance No. X of 2001:
The Supreme Court analyzed the ordinance, which clarified that the first proviso to Section 27(3) would not apply to member societies that invested in the federal society before the amendment's commencement. The ordinance was given retrospective effect from August 23, 2000. The Court held that the ordinance was valid and removed any doubt or controversy regarding the voting rights of societies admitted before the amendment. The Court rejected the argument of legislative malice, stating that the motive behind the legislation is beyond judicial scrutiny unless there is a constitutional violation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the voter list finalized on June 30, 2000, and the Maharashtra Ordinance No. X of 2001. The Court found no legislative malice and emphasized the importance of interpreting statutory language in its natural sense. The appeal was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

← Previous Next →