Bombay High Court
Mrs. Sushma Ravi Pagare And Ors vs Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ... on 8 September, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, P. K. Chavan
21.16629.21-wpst.odt
BASAVRAJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
GURAPPA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PATIL
Digitally signed by
BASAVRAJ
GURAPPA PATIL
Date: 2021.09.13
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.16629/2021
12:28:46 +0530
Sushma Ravi Pagare & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Vs.
Saraswat Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Bhavesh Parmar with Rahul Gaikwad, Devmani Shukla,
Gauri Govilkar I/b. Gravitas Legal for the Petitioners
Ms. Deepa Chawan, Ravindra Chile, Siddha Pamecha,
Vaibhav Warerkar, Toufiq Kapadia and Ruksmin Ghiara I/b.
M. Mulla Associates for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Ashutosh Misra for Respondent No.3 - UOI
CORAM: K.K.TATED &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 8, 2021
P.C.
1 Heard. By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking to set aside
the election process of Respondent No.1 as reflected in
public Notice dated 24.08.2021, Exhibit - C and D, Page 20
and 21 to the Writ Petition, issued by Respondent No.4.
2 The main contention of the Petitioner is that as per
Part IX-B of the Constitution of India, Respondent No.1 has
to provide reservation of one seat for the Scheduled Castes
or the Scheduled Tribes and two seats for women on board
of every cooperative society consisting of individuals as
Basavraj G. Patil 1/3
21.16629.21-wpst.odt
members and having members from such class of category
of persons. He submits that Part IX-B was the subject
matter of Civil Appeal Nos.9108-9109/2014 - Union of
IndiaVs. Rajendra N Shah & Anr. before the apex court. He
submits that the Apex Court, by order dated 20.07.2021 has
struck down the judgment of the Gujarat High Court to the
extent of entirety of Part IX-B of the Constitution of India.
It has been declared that Part IX-B is applicable to the Multi
State Cooperative Societies. In support of this contention,
the learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record
a copy of the said judgment dated 20.07.2021. He submits
that it is the duty of Respondent No.1 to amend the bye-laws
to that effect. Same has not been done by them. Hence, the
election process is liable to be set aside.
3 On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent
No.1 submits that it is crystal clear from Article 243-ZR and
243-ZT of the Constitution of India that unless and until the
Act is amended to that effect, there is no question of
following the same. She submits that the election process
has already been started and there is no question of
granting any stay at this stage.
4 It is to be noted that the main prayer of the Petitioner
is that the Respondent be directed to amend the existing
bye-laws of Respondent No.1 to bring it in consonance with
Part IX-B of the Constitution of India. Bare reading of
Article 243-ZT shows that unless and until the law is
amended, there is no question of amendment of the bye-
laws. Apart from that, the judgment of the apex court is of
Basavraj G. Patil 2/3
21.16629.21-wpst.odt
20.07.2021 whereas the notice of election program was
issued by the Respondent Bank on 21.08.2021. Considering
these facts, we are of the opinion that there is no question of
granting any stay, at present.
5 Hence, following order is passed:
a. Rule.
b. No interim relief.
c. The learned counsel for the Respondent waives
service.
d. Hearing expedited.
(PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)
Basavraj G. Patil 3/3
