1991 (10) TMI 319 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the nomination and election of respondent No. 8 as the President of the Multi-State Co-operative Society under Section 37 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984.
2. Availability and adequacy of alternative remedies under Section 40 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition against the Cooperative Bank and the Returning Officer.
4. Interpretation of Section 37 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Nomination and Election of Respondent No. 8:
The petitioners challenged the acceptance of the nomination of respondent No. 8 for the post of President of the Development Co-operative Bank Limited, a Multi-State Co-operative Society, under Section 37 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. Section 37 stipulates that no person shall be eligible to hold the office of a president after holding it for two consecutive terms. The explanation to Section 37 clarifies that if a person was holding the office at the commencement of the Act and is re-elected, it will be considered as one term. Respondent No. 8 was holding office at the commencement of the Act and was subsequently re-elected, thus making him ineligible for another term in April 1989.

2. Availability and Adequacy of Alternative Remedies under Section 40:
The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 40 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. Section 40 allows the Central Registrar to remove a member from office if they refuse to vacate under certain disqualifications. However, the court held that Section 40 does not provide a suitable forum for adjudicating disputes related to election validity, which is specifically governed by Section 74. Since Section 74 was stayed, the court found that Section 40 did not offer an adequate alternative remedy.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable against the Cooperative Bank and the Returning Officer as they are not 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The court, however, held that a writ is maintainable to enforce statutory duties imposed by the Act. The court cited the Supreme Court's observation that a mandamus can be issued to compel a society or its officials to carry out statutory duties.

4. Interpretation of Section 37:
The court interpreted Section 37 and its explanation, stating that the section prevents a person from holding the office of president for more than two consecutive terms. The explanation includes terms held at the commencement of the Act, regardless of whether the office was held by nomination or election. The court rejected the argument that the explanation applies only to elected terms, emphasizing that the purpose of Section 37 is to limit the tenure of office to prevent prolonged control by a single individual.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that respondent No. 8's election as president in April 1989 was in violation of Section 37 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. The writ petition was found to be maintainable, and the court set aside the nomination and election of respondent No. 8. The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected, and the operation of the order was stayed for eight weeks.

Order:
The order passed by respondent No. 7 declaring respondent No. 8 as validly nominated and his subsequent election as president was set aside. The rule was made absolute with costs. The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected, and the operation of the order was stayed for eight weeks.