C LAKSHMIAH REDDIAR Vs. SRI PERUMBADUR TALUK CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of Ramakrishnan, J. , dismissing a petition (W. P. No. 379 of 1961) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the appellant c. Lakshmiah Reddiar for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the proceedings of the Board of Directors of the Sriperumbudur taluk Co-operative Marketing Society dated 19-3-1961 in so far as they relate to the rejection of the nomination paper of the appellant in connection with the election of the directors of the Society. The appellant's nomination was rejected on the ground that he had not brought to the society a quantity of 50 maunds of paddy for sale through the Society. The main ground on which the appellant impugned the order of the Board of Directors was that the entire proceedings relating to the scrutiny of nomination papers were vitiated by gross violation of all principles of natural justice inasmuch as the directors who had offered themselves for re-election, took part in the disposal of the objection to the nomination of the appellant. The appellant alleged that his nomination was rejected to avoid competition. The directors had acted as Judges in their own cause. The respondent society opposed the application on two grounds : (1) That the directors, who sought the election, did not take part in the rejection of the appellant's nomination, and even if they did, there was no warrant in the bye-laws that such directors should not be present at the meeting, (2) that the Society was a private Society and the proceedings relating to the internal administration of such a society will fall outside the special jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Judge, Ramakrishnan, J. , who heard and disposed of the application, dismissed it, holding that the directors had conformed by-law 6 in substance in the disposal of the objection and that there was no violation of any principle of natural justice. Hence this appeal.

(2.) CERTAIN Regulations (which were referred to by Ramakrishnan, J. , as bye-laws)were made by the Society for the conduct of the election of directors from among the members of the Society. Regulations 5 and 6 are material to the disposal of this appeal. They run thus :

(3.) THE learned Advocate-General raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. The objection was that a writ could not issue under Article 226 of the Constitution to any body, which was not a judicial or quasi judicial Tribunal statutorily entrusted with the right and duty to decide disputes between parties. This limitation on the power to issue prerogative writs is stated thus is one of the leading authorities on the subject. Rex. V. Electricity commissioners, 1924-1 KB 171 at p. 205 :