BALASAHEB RAJARAMJI DAMPURIKAR Vs. COLLECTOR OF PARBHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from holding a meeting for electing Chairman' and the Vice -Chairman of the second respondent society. Second respondent Parbhani District Central Co -operative Bank Limited is a specified society governed by the provisions of chap. VII as well as chap. XI A of the Maharashtra Co -operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As per the provisions of chap. XIA the collector is the competent authority to hold elections of committee and the officers of second respondent society. For holding elections of the committee and officers of the specified societies the Government has framed rules in exercise of the power conferred upon it by Sub -section (3) of Section 144 F and Sub -section (4) of Section 144T and Section 144X and all other enabling provisions in that behalf and the said rules are known as Maharashtra Specified Co -operative Societies Election to Committees Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It is contended by the petitioner that as per the bye -laws of the society electorate is divided in different constituencies. So far elections have been held for one seat from the industrial societies constituency, to eight seats from agricultural credit societies from 8 talukas, to one seat from marketing societies from the district, to one seat from individual members, one nominee of the Maharashtra State Co -operative Bank is also nominated and election is also held for one seat from non -agricultural and processing society. These elections were held as per election programme referred to in para. 6 of the petition and in this election first petitioner Balasaheb Rajaramji has been elected as a director on the board of directors i.e. the managing committee of second respondent from the constituency of agricultural credit societies from Parbhani taluka. However, according to the petitioners ex -officio managing director and the nominee of the Zilla Parishad, is not yet nominated. Similarly nominees of the employees under Section 73BB and two members from the reserved constituencies viz. from the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes etc. or from the weaker section of the members, as provided for by Section 73B, have not been elected. In this writ petition the petitioners have confined their grievance to the election to the reserve seats referred to in Section 73B of the Act and have contended that unless the said elections are held the collector has no power to convene a meeting of the managing committee for electing the office -bearers viz. the Chairman or the Vice -Chairman. According to the petitioners unless these elections are held, constitution of the committee is not complete and hence the election of office bearers under Sub -section (2) and Section 144Y cannot be held, until the committee is duly constituted. In support of this contention the petitioners are relying upon a decision of this Court hi Nathmal Gopikisan v. N. D. Rahate [1968] Mah. L.J. 866 as well as the provisions, of Section 73B of the Act.

(2.) ON the other hand it is contended by Shri Pradhan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and Shri Sawant, learned Addl. Government Pleader that Section 73B itself lays down in clearest terms that if the persons belonging to the reserved category are not elected, the committee has power to co -opt required number of members on the committee from amongst the persons entitled to such representation and, therefore, in each and every case it is not necessary that before the first meeting of the committee is convened, the election to these constituencies should be completed. It is open to the committee to co -opt the required number of members on the committee from amongst the persons entitled to represent the reserved constituencies by co -opting them. Therefore, it cannot be said that the constitution of the committee is not complete.

(3.) THEREAFTER also another Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the scheme of the said section in Dinkar v. Chikhali Vividh Karyaketrit Society Writ Petition No. 396 of 1979 decided on December 16, 1979. After examining the scheme of the section in para. 12 of the judgment the Division Bench observed: It is however advisable to frame proper bye -laws to implement the latest mandate under Section 78B to 78C to avoid any confusion.