JUDGMENT B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. The parties were heard on 11-12-2006 at the stage of Admission itself and matter was adjourned to 18-12-2006 for passing orders. However, it appears that on account of wrong noting of date matter was not listed on 18-12-2006 and then it was mentioned by learned Counsel for petitioner. The mistake was thereafter discovered and matter is listed today on board for admission.
2. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of parties matter is heard finally.
3. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 6-11-2006 passed by the respondent No. 1 Collector, directing deletion of name of present petitioner from the voters list of respondent No. 4 Co-operative Society and directing inclusion of name of objector before him i.e. the present respondent No. 3 in the voters list. The respondent No. 1 Resident Deputy Collector has upheld the objection of respondent No. 3 on the ground that as petitioner did not complete two years period as member of Primary Society i.e. respondent No. 2, he was not entitled to vote in its affairs and hence, he could not have been sent by respondent No. 2 Society, as its representative to participate and vote in affairs of respondent No. 4 Federal Society. The Resident Deputy Collector has found that the provisions of Section 27(3) and 27(3A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 have been amended at some time and object of the amendment is to see that the member does not get voting rights in affairs of the Society till he completes requisite period of two years. He has extended the analogy to the representative to be forwarded by the said Society to participate in the affairs of the Federal Society on the ground that it would be contrary to the object of the Act, if a member who has no voting rights in the affairs of his Society is permitted to participate in the affairs of the Federal Society. Provisions of Section 27 reads as under:
27. Voting powers of members. -- (1) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section (2) to (7) both inclusive, no member of any Society shall have more than one vote in its affairs; and every right to vote shall be exercised personally and not by proxy;
Provided that, in the case of an equality of votes the Chairman shall have a casting vote;
(2) Where a share of a Society is held jointly by more than one person (the person whose name stands first in the share certificate, if present, shall have the right to vote. But in his absence whose name stands next, and likewise, in the absence of the preceding persons the person whose name is next on the share certificate, who is present and who is not a minor, shall have the right to vote.) (3) A Society which has invested any part of its funds in the shares of any Federal Society, may appoint one of its members to vote on its behalf in the affairs of that Federal Society, and accordingly such member shall have the right to vote on behalf of the Society;
Provided that, any new member Society of a Federal Society shall be eligible to vote in the affairs of that Federal Society only after 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.
(3A) An individual member of a Society shall not be eligible for voting in the affairs of that Society for a period of two years from the date of his enrolment as a member of such Society.
4. It is therefore apparent that an individual member of Society is not eligible for voting in the affairs of the said Society for a period of two years after his enrollment. Similarly a Society like the respondent No. 2 Society who is member of respondent No. 4 Society is eligible to vote in the affairs of the respondent No. 4 Federal Society, only after completion of period of three years from the date of its investment in the share of respondent No. 4 Society. Here it is not in dispute that the respondent No. 2 Society has completed necessary period of three years and therefore, is eligible to vote in the affairs of the Federal Society. Only question is whether on account of conjoint reading of Section 27(3A) read with Section 27(3), a representative to be forwarded by the respondent No. 2 must also have completed period of two years from the date of his enrolment as member of the Primary Society like the respondent No. 2. In other words, whether a voter of respondent No. 2 Society alone can be forwarded by it as representative on respondent No. 4 Society.
5. I have heard Advocate Gawande, for petitioner, learned AGP for respondent No. 1, Advocate Patil for respondent No. 2 and Advocate Saboo, for respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2 Society is favouring case of petitioner.
6. Advocate Gawande, has argued that the respondent No. 1 has put unnecessary restrictions on rights of respondent No. 2 to vote in the affairs of respondent No. 4. He states that provisions of Section 27(3) only requires that respondent No. 2 ought to have completed three years from the date of investment into the shares of respondent No. 4 and that fact is not in dispute. Law permits respondent No. 2 to send any of its member as its representative on respondent No. 4 Society. He contends that there is no requirement that such representative must also be a voter member of respondent No. 2. He contends that the respondent No. 1 has read something which is not prescribed under Section 27 and thus has exercised jurisdiction not otherwise available to him.
7. Learned AGP as also Advocate Saboo, have contended that the view taken by the respondent No. 1 is just and proper. They state that the petitioner who is eligible to vote in the affairs of any Society cannot be permitted to vote on behalf of his Society in affairs of respondent No. 4 Federal Society. They contend that the intention of legislature is apparent and if interpretation put by the respondent No. 1 is not accepted, said intention would stand defeated. They have placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported at 2001 CTJ 129, Vasantrao Annasaheb Ubale and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and judgment of Full Bench of this Court reported at , Sandip Vasantrao Lahare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
8. Learned AGP has contended that the controversy is covered by the Full Bench judgment between Sandip v. State of Maharashtra (supra). However, I find that the controversy there was in relation to the circular dated 23-7-2003 issued by the Government, which required addition of period of 120 days to prescribed period of two years mentioned in Section 27(3A), as period of eligibility to have name of member in voters list. Thus provisions of Rule 56B governing the elections of notified societies have been construed by the Full Bench along with Section 27(3A). While resolving that controversy in para No. 10, the Hon'ble Full Bench has observed as under:
... To put it explicitly, a member of a notified Society will be eligible to vote in the affairs of that Society after a period of two years from the date of his enrolment is completed by him. Such a member can be nominated or appointed by such notified Society as its representative to vote on its behalf in the affairs of Federal Society, provided always that member Society of a Federal Society has completed three years after its investing any part of its funds in the shares of such Federal Society.
It is difficult to interpret these lines to hold that Full Bench concluded that voter alone can be nominated or appointed by notified Society as its representative to vote on its behalf. There was no such issue before the Hon'ble Full Bench and the Hon'ble Full Bench has only taken an illustration to explain the situation and in the process of explaining the said situation, the Full Bench has stated that the member of notified Society can be eligible to vote in the affairs of such notified Society after a period of 2 years and such member can also be nominated or appointed by notified Society as its representative to vote on its behalf in the affairs of the Federal Society. The Hon'ble Full Bench has not said that a member who has not put in two years from the date of his enrolment in notified Society cannot be sent or nominated by notified Society on Federal Society. I therefore, find that the contention that controversy is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Full Bench, is incorrect and cannot be accepted.
9. The other judgment between Vasantrao Ubale v. State of Maharashtra (supra), on which the learned AGP has placed reliance again does not directly deal with the controversy, but only explains the purpose of amendment and purpose of imposing certain time limit for a member to become eligible as voter. The question of retrospective operation of the Amending Act No. 41/2000 has also been gone into. This aspect is also considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its reported judgment , Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.. I find that this controversy is not at all relevant for adjudication in the present matter.
10. In Gurudeodatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has in paragraph No. 25 in the process of considering the provisions of Section 27(3), in the light of amending provision has stated that - it is cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule has been stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as words of statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning and if the words are clear, plain and unambiguous, courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of consequences.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in recent judgment reported at , Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., which is a Constitutional Bench judgment made important observations about right to elect and also about right to dispute a election. In para No. 255 the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has made the following observations.
255. Again, in para 41, the position was illuminatingly stated by M.N. Venkatachaliah, J (as His Lordship then was);
A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is anomalously enough neither a fundamental right nor a common-law right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So it is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside the statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are and therefore, subject to statutory limitation.
From above, it is apparent that right to vote is to be construed in the light of provisions of Section 27(3). Wordings in Section 27(3) clearly shows that the respondent No. 2 Society which has invested in shares of respondent No. 4 Federal Society can appoint one of its member to vote on its behalf in the affairs of that Federal Society. By proviso thereto the right of new member of Federal Society has only been covered and stands postponed till completion of period of three years. It is admitted position that said proviso has no application in the facts of the present case. Again Section 27(3A), clearly shows that embargo upon right of individual member of the Society in this respect as to period is for two years from the date of his enrolment as member of such Society. Thus the scheme of Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (3A) is very clear. I do not find anything in language of Section 27(3), to enable me to hold that a member who is not eligible for voting in affairs of Primary Society cannot be sent as representative on Federal Society. The language of Sub-section (3) itself shows that such Primary Society which has right to vote in affairs of Federal Society can appoint one of its member to vote on its behalf and after such appointment such member gets rights to vote on behalf of his Society. If the legislature wanted that such member to be appointed by Primary Society to vote on its behalf in affairs of Federal Society also should have completed two years from the date of his enrolment as member of such Primary Society, the legislature could have made that provision easily in Sub-section (3) itself. Non use of word "voter", the use of words "member" and the member being empowered to vote because of his appointment by Primary Society as is apparent from the said provision is itself sufficient to conclude that there is no scope left for applying a logic behind the amendment by Act No. 41/2000. The application of mind in this respect by the respondent No. 1 RDC cannot be sustained. The words of Section 27(3) are very clear and it can be implemented as it is without any difficulty. There is nothing in the context which requires or warrants any other interpretation.
12. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 6-11-2006 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, is hereby quashed and set aside. The appointment of petitioner by respondent No. 2 Society as its representative to participate in the affairs of respondent No. 4 Federal Society is restored. Rule is made absolute accordingly in the aforesaid terms. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.