Bombay High Court
Naneshwar S/O Ramchandra ... vs District Co-Op. ... on 21 March, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp639.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 639 OF 2017
Naneshwar S/o. Ramchandra Gharjare,
Aged 45 years, R/o. at Saleburdi,
Post : Hardoli, Tq. Mohadi, Dist.Bhandara.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. District Co-operative Election/
Returning Officer of the Bhandara
District Central Co-operative Bank
Ltd., Bhandara and the Divisional
Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies
Nagpur, at Dhanwate Chambers
Annex, Sitabuldi, Nagpur.
2. Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha
Saleburdi, Post : Hardoli, Tq. Mohadi,
Distt. Bhandara.
3. Bhagwan Domaji Randive,
aged Adult, R/o. at Saleburdi,
Post Hardoli, Tq. Mohadi,
Distt. Bhandara.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri S.Paliwal, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms Shamsi Haider, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Ms A.R.Taiwade, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Intervener.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : MARCH 21, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Judgment 2 wp639.17.odt
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District
Co-operative Election Officer directing that name of the respondent No.3 be
included in the list of voters for the elections of Board of Directors of the
Bhandara District Central Co-operative Bank, Bhandara, as representative of
the respondent No.2-Society.
4. According to the petitioner, the Executive Committee of the
respondent No.2-Society had elected him in the meeting of the Executive
Committee held on 22nd January, 2016 to be the representative of the
respondent No.2-Society and in the annual general meeting held on 13th
August, 2016 the resolution passed by the Executive Committee on 22nd
January, 2016 was confirmed, however, after the election of new Executive
Committee on 5th September, 2016, the newly elected Executive Committee
passed resolution on 10th November, 2016 to the effect that the name of the
respondent No.3 should be sent for inclusion in the voters list in place of
name of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner
having been elected as representative of the respondent No.2-Society for the
elections of Board of Directors of the bank by the general body, the decision
Judgment 3 wp639.17.odt
can be changed/ modified only by resolution of the general body and the
Executive Committee cannot change or modify the earlier decision. The
learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the provisions of Rule 10(4) of
the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014
which provides that the names of the representative can be changed only in
case of death of the earlier representative or where there is newly elected
committee of the principal society and this can be done only by a resolution
like the resolution by which the name of the earlier representative was
finalized. It is argued that in the present case, the name of the petitioner was
finalized by a resolution passed by the general body and therefore, the newly
elected Executive Committee cannot change the name of the representative
and communicate the name of the respondent No.3 in place of the petitioner
to be the representative of the respondent No.2-society for the purposes of
election of the bank.
5. The respondent No.3 disputes the claim of the petitioner.
According to the respondent No.3, the issue regarding confirmation of
resolution No.1 taken in Executive Committee meeting on 22nd January,
2016 was not placed before the General Body in its annual meeting held on
13th August, 2016.
The petitioner has placed copies of the resolutions said to have
been passed on 22nd January, 2016 and 13th August, 2016. Though in the
Judgment 4 wp639.17.odt
cause title of the petition it is not shown through whom the respondent No.2-
Society is to be represented, the advocate for the petitioner has relied on the
provisions of Sections 36 and 27 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act, 1960 and the judgment given in the case of Sachin Sahakari
Gruhanirman ..vs.. Shree Ram Construction Co., reported in AIR 1981
Bombay 260 to argue that the respondent No.2 is a body corporate and can
institute and defend the suits and other legal proceedings. The office note
shows that the respondent No.2 society is served. There is no appearance on
behalf of the respondent No.2-society. The respondent No.3 has not taken
any steps to seek production of the original proceedings book / meeting book
to substantiate his contention that the issue regarding confirmation of
resolution No.1 taken in the executive committee's meeting held on 22nd
January, 2016 was not placed before the general body in its annual meeting
held on 13th August, 2016. In these facts, it has to be held that the name of
the petitioner was finalized as the representative of the respondent No.2-
society for the elections of the bank by the general body by confirming the
resolution passed by the executive committee and in view of the provisions of
Rule 10(4) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to
Committee) Rules, 2014, the executive Committee of the respondent No.2
cannot change or modify the decision of the general body.
Hence, the following order :
Judgment 5 wp639.17.odt
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) of the
petition. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
CAW NO. 637/2017.
The applicant bank is neither necessary nor proper party to the
petition and the lis is between the petitioner and the respondents.
Therefore, the civil application is dismissed.
JUDGE
RRaut..
