B.S. POTEY Vs. B.A. JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Yavatmal District Central Co -operative Bank Limited is a society specified under Section 73G of the Maharashtra Co -operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Members of the committee of a specified society are elected under the provisions of the Maharashtra Specified Co -operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Election Rules'). The petitioner was elected as a member of the committee of the said bank on October 25, 1978 representing the Maregaon Block Development Constituency. On March 20, 1979 he tendered his resignation as a member of the committee and the Chairman of the Bank accepted this resignation on that very day and intimated the vacancy to the District Deputy Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Yavatmal (respondent No. 1) on March 23, 1979. The vacancy caused due to the resignation of the petitioner was required to be filled in under the provisions of Rule 72 of the Election Rules. The elections to the Committees of specified societies are governed by Chapter XI -A of the Act and under Section 144 -C occurring in that chapter, it is the Collector who has to fix the date for the election and the election has to be conducted under his control by such returning officer as he may appoint in this behalf. In pursuance of this provision the District Registrar requested the Collector, Yavatmal to hold the bye -election to fill in the vacancy caused by the resignation of the petitioner. Accordingly the Collector published a provisional list of voters on July 20, 1979 and he also published the final list of voters on August 30, 1979. He could not hold the bye -election because on September 5, 1979 the State Government (respondent No. 3) postponed the elections of committees of specified societies generally. However, the State Government directed the Collector to hold election on January 21, 1980 and the Collector in his turn published the provisional list of voters on August 20, 1981.

(2.) ON September 4, 1981 the District Deputy Registrar in the purported exercise of his power under Section 77A of the Act, appointed respondent No. 2 as director in the board of directors of the said bank for the remaining period of tenure of the present board of directors or till the date of declaration of results of the election to be held under Rule 72 of the Election Rules, whichever is earlier. In the pre -amble to this order the District Deputy Registrar traced the history as to how the seat had become vacant and proceeded to state that that seat was vacant even till the date when he passed that order and that it was necessary to fill the said vacancy. It is this order passed by the District Deputy Registrar on September 4, 1981 which is under challenge before us in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) THE petition is contested by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 1, the District Deputy Registrar, has firstly contended that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as he cannot have any legitimate grievance and has not suffered any legal injury due to the impugned order. In justification of the impugned order respondent No, 1 contends that the seat was giving vacant since March 20, 1979, because of the direction given by the Government from time to time it could not be filled in and the cause of agriculture which was being represented on the board of directors by the petitioner was suffering and hence it was expedient for him to fill in the vacancy caused by the resignation of the petitioner. He submits that in these circumstances he was satisfied that the matter required immediate action and hence he passed the impugned order. It had been alleged in the petition that respondent No. 1 had passed this order under political pressure, but he has denied this. The return filed by respondent No. 1 does not throw any light on the contention of the petitioner that he could not invoke his powers under Section 77A for filling the vacancy caused by the resignation of the petitioner. The return is conspicuously silent on this important issue.