ORDER D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2. In these proceedings, the petitioners have challenged an order passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court on 12th March, 2001. The short question which arises is as regards the period of time with reference to which, a Co-operative Society has to be regarded as a notified society within the meaning of Section 73-1C of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for conducting elections. Elections to the Managing Committee of the First Respondent, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Act were held on 14th February, 1996. The first meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 28th February, 1996. Consequently, it is common ground that the term of the Committee came to an end on 27th February, 2001 on or before which date elections to constitute a new Managing Committee were required to be held. In the present case, on 3rd October, 2000, the first Respondent addressed a letter to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies setting out that the share capital of the society as on 30th June, 2000 was Rs. 12,07,800/- and since the society had crossed the threshold limit of Rs. 10 lacs for share capital, the elections should be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VA of the Rules framed under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Registrar by his communication dated 16th January, 2001 responded by stating that in terms of the Government Notification dated 31st October, 1990, a Co-operative Society whose share capital was in excess of Rs, 10 lacs in the previous year will have to be regarded as a notified society within the meaning of Section 73-1C. The Registrar proceeded to adopt the cut off date as 31st March, 1999 and since, as on that date, the share capital of the society was not in excess of Rs. 10 lacs, he was of the view that the elections of the society would not be governed by the provisions of Chapter VA of the Rules and would have to be held by the Co-operative Society itself. The society thus, made preparations for the conduct of the elections by notifying the voters' list and declaring the programme of elections.
3. The petitioners raised a dispute before the Co-operative Court in which an application for interim relief was made. The Co-operative Court by an order dated 14th February, 2001 accepted the contention of the petitioners that the relevant date for the application of the threshold limit of Rs. 10 lacs would have to be 30th June, 2000 and since it was an admitted position that the share capital of the society had exceeded Rs. 10 lacs even prior thereto, as on 31st March, 2000, the society was a notified society. The necessary consequence was that the elections would have to be held in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VA of the Rules. The Cooperative Court, however, declined to stay the elections which were sought to be conducted by the society on the ground that the election process had already commenced. In appeal, these findings were affirmed by the Cooperative Appellate Court, by its order dated 12th March, 2001. The Cooperative Appellate Court also held that in terms of the notification issued by the Government on 31st October, 1990, the relevant date would be 30th June of the previous year and in this case on 30th June, 2000 the share capital of the society was in excess of Rs. 10 lacs. Consequent thereto the elections would have to be necessarily held by the Registrar and not by the Co-operative Society itself. The Co-operative Appellate Court, however, declined to stay the elections since the election programme had already commenced.
4. This petition was heard for admission on 23rd March, 2001. A learned Single Judge of this Court granted interim relief at that stage directing the Respondents not to proceed with the further election process since prima facie on the basis of the material on record it appeared that the First Respondent is a notified society. The learned Single Judge observed that the interim order was passed in these circumstances since ordinarily the Court, otherwise, would have not interfered at that stage with the election process.
5. In order to appreciate, the parameters of the controversy which arises in these proceedings, a reference may be made to Section 73-1C of the Act which deals with elections to notified societies. Section 73-1C provides as follows:
Where the State Government is satisfied that, having regard to the objects of the society or class of societies (other than the societies specified by or under Section 73(G), or composition of membership thereof, or proper management and the interest of the members, it is necessary in the public interest to hold elections to any society or class of societies, the State Government may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any Rules, or By-laws made thereunder, or in any other law for the time being in force, by general or special order, notify in the Official Gazette, such society or class of societies and the election to such society or class of societies shall be held by the Registrar in the prescribed manner.
6. In exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 73-1C, the State Government issued a notification dated 31st October, 1990 by which it notified that all Primary Agricultural Credit Societies in the State having a paid up share capital of Rs. 10 lacs and above as on the 30th day of June of the previous year shall be regarded as notified societies for the purposes of Section 73-1C and Chapter VA of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. This notification had been issued in super session of a previous Notification dated 21st October, 1988 under which, according to the learned counsel, all Primary Agricultural Credit Societies were regarded as notified societies for the purpose of Section 73-1C and Chapter VA of the Rules. That is not however, a matter of much importance since what is required to be emphasized is that under the terms of the Government Notification dated 31st October, 1990 which holds the field, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society which has a paid up share capital of Rs. 10 lacs and above as on the 30th day of June of the previous year is to be regarded as a notified society.
7. In the present case, both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the expression "previous year" has to be construed with reference to the calendar year prior to the year in which the elections are required to be held. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged that since there is no challenge to this finding on the part of the Respondents, that finding must be regarded as correct for the purposes of these proceedings. However, since the matter involves an issue of some importance and the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, the Court has had occasion to consider the correctness of the view which has been taken by the Courts below with the assistance of the learned counsel.
8. Section 73-1C came to be introduced into the Act by Maharashtra Act 20 of 1986. The underlying object and purpose of treating certain societies as notified societies is inter alia to ensure that the elections to those societies are subject to independent control. These are societies which are regarded as a class by themselves where, having regard to the objects of the society, the composition of membership or in the interests of proper management, it is necessary in the public interest to hold elections in the prescribed manner. Once the society is regarded as a notified society, the provisions contained in Chapter VA of the Rules regulate the conduct and holding of elections. The elections are then required to be held under the authority of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies of his designated officers in the manner set out in Rule 56A of the Rules. Once a society becomes a notified society, the stages in the election process are monitored and regulated by the Registrar and these include (i) The preparation of the voters' list; (ii) The displaying of the voters' list; (iii) The inviting of objections to the voters' list; (iv) The deciding of the objections; and (v) The holding of elections.
9. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 56A provides that the Chief Executive of a notified society shall deliver a report in Form M-2 to the Registrar on or before the30th day of September of the preceding calendar year in which the term of office of the Managing Committee of the society expires. Under the proviso, where the Chief Executive of the notified society fails to report to the Registrar within the time prescribed, the Registrar is empowered to enlist the name of the society for the purpose of the aforesaid sub-rule and the enlisting of the name is prima facie evidence that the election is due to be held in the succeeding year unless proved to the contrary. Sub-rule (4) requires that upon receipt of the report or otherwise, the Registrar shall publish on or before the 15th day of October a list of societies in his office of which the elections to the Committee are to be held in the succeeding year.
10. The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 defines the expression "co-operative year" in Section 2(10-aiii). The expression is defined to mean a year ending on the 31st day of March or on such other day in regard to a particular society or class of societies as may have been fixed by the Registrar from time to time for balancing its or their accounts. Therefore, if the Registrar fixes any other day other than the 31st day of March for the balancing of accounts of the society, the year ending on that date is to be the co-operative year. Failing this, the co-operative year is the year ending on the 31st day of March. The notification which has been issued by the Government on 31st October, 1990 does not use the expression "co-operative year". The notification as already noted refers to the 30th June of the previous year for the purpose of computing the threshold limit of Rs. 10 lacs. Therefore, in determining whether the Co-operative Society has crossed the threshold limit of Rs. 10 lacs, the share capital of the society in the calendar year preceding the year in which elections are due will have to be taken into account. In the present case, there is no dispute at all about the fact that on 31st March, 2000, the share capital of the First Respondent was Rs. 10,00,480/-. On 30th June, 2000 the share capital was Rs. 12,42,385/-. The election to the society was required to be held on or before 27th February, 2001. The 30th day of June of the previous year necessarily therefore means 30th June, 2000. The expression "previous year" cannot have any other meaning and must be accorded its plain grammatical meaning. However, to set the matter beyond doubt, it would be necessary to refer to the expression 'year' which is defined in Section 3(66) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 under which the expression 'year' means a year according to the British calendar.
11. The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 uses the expressions 'year' as well as "co-operative year". For instance, in Sub-section (2) of Section 73-G, it is specified that the Members of a Committee of a Cooperative Society elected at a general election shall hold office for a period of five years from the date of the first meeting. The expression "co-operative year" is used for instance in the context of enquiries, inspection and supervision in Chapter 8 of the Act. Sub-section l(a) of Section 81 provides that the Registrar shall audit or cause to be audited at least once in each co-operative year, the accounts of every society which has been given financial assistance including a guarantee by the State Government. In the present case, the notification which has been issued by the Government expressly refers to the expression "previous year". Previous year for the purpose of the notification cannot mean previous co-operative year.
12. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 56A to which a reference has already been made requires the Chief Executive of the notified society to deliver a report to the Registrar on or before the 30th day of September of the preceding calendar year in which the term of office of the Managing Committee expires. Therefore, since in the present case, the election was due on 27th February, 2001, the report was required to be delivered on or before 30th September, 2000. The proviso to Sub-rule (3) deals with a situation where the Chief Executive of the notified society does not deliver the report in which case the Registrar is empowered to enlist the name of the society on his own in which case that would be prima-facie evidence that the election of the society is due to be held in the succeeding co-operative year. In the present case, it transpires that on 31st March, 1999, the share capital of the co-operative society was Rs. 8.46 lacs. The date 31st March, 1999, however, cannot be regarded as the date falling in the year previous to the year in which the elections of the First Respondent were due. In the present case, the election had fallen due in the year 2001 commencing from 1st January, 2001 and therefore, the 30th day of June of the previous year necessarily means 30th June, 2000.
13. The Courts below were, therefore, entirely correct in arriving at the conclusion that the First Respondent is a notified society and that, therefore, the elections ought to be held in pursuance of the provisions of Chapter VA of the Rules. The Courts below, however, declined to issue that direction since the election programme had begun. As already noted, a learned Single Judge of this Court stayed the election process on 23rd March, 2001 since the material on record prima-facie established that the First Respondent is a notified society. With respect, it may be emphasized that the learned Single Judge took due notice of the limitations imposed upon the power of the Court to intervene once the election process has begun. This was, however, a case where the election itself which was sought to be held by the First Respondent was without authority and hence, vitiated since, upon the application of Section 73-1C it was not for the cooperative society, but for the State through the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to hold the elections. In Shyamdeo Pd. Singh v. Nawal Kishore Yadav (2000) 8 SCC 46, the Supreme Court has held thus:
24. One of the principles underlying the plenary bar on judicial proceedings in election matters created by Article 329(b) Is the pre-emptory urgency of prompt engineering of the whole election process without intermediate interruptions by way of legal proceedings challenging the steps and stages in between the commencement and the conclusion (See Mohinder Singh Gill AIR para 30.) The same principle underlies Sub-section (3) of Section 23 of 1950 Act. The last date for making nomination for elections in a constituency and the date of declaration of result are the terminus a quo and terminus ad quern between which the electoral rolls must remain untouched. Amendment (which will include inclusion), transposition or deletion of entries in electoral rolls are all taboos in this interregnum.
14.The present case deals with an exceptional situation where the entire process of the holding of the elections to the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society by the First Respondent could not be permitted to take place for the reason that the society had no authority to hold the election. Since the share capital of the society was in excess of Rs. 10 lacs, the holding of the elections had to be lawfully conducted under the independant authority of the Registrar.
15. In the circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed. As a consequence, there shall be a direction to the Third Respondent, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune to proceed to hold the election to the First Respondent and to declare the election programme in accordance with Chapter VA of the Rules. The orders passed by the Courts below declining to stay the proposed elections which were to be held by the First Respondent are accordingly set aside to the aforesaid extent and the Registrar is directed to complete the election process as expeditiously as possible.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.