Committee of Management and Another vs State of U.P.and Others

The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 28.7.2009 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) whereby fresh dates in regard to the election in respect of Kendriya Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Ltd., Shahjahanpur have been fixed. Further prayer has been made in the writ petition for directing the respondents to hold the election as per the schedule provided in the order dated 1.6.2009 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition). Yet another prayer has been made in the writ petition for directing the respondents to hold election on the strength of number of individual members existing prior to 11.7.2009 and excluding new members enrolled after 11.7.2009.

From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that consequent to the amendment made in subsection (2) of Section 29 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 by the U.P. Act No.46 of 2007 whereby the term of the Committee of Management was reduced from five years to two years, the petitioners herein filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.3402 (M/B) of 2008. By an interim order dated 21.4.2008, this Court, inter alia, directed as under:

�We, therefore, direct as an interim measure that the present Committee of Management shall continue till the elections are held by the Registrar. As soon as the elections are held, the functioning of the present Committee of Management shall cease and it will hand over the charge to the elected committee.�

The said interim order is stated to be still continuing.

It further appears that by the order dated 1.6.2009 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), the election programme for holding election in respect of various Cooperative Societies including all Kendriya Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar was issued.

Subsequently, by the order dated 29.7.2009 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), the dates fixed earlier by the order dated 1.6.2009 have been postponed, and fresh dates have been fixed for the election in respect of Kendriya Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Ltd., Shahjahanpur.

It further appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the Committee of Management (Petitioner No.1) of the Cooperative Society in question passed a resolution on 11.7.2009 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition), inter alia, providing that any new member inducted after the date of the said resolution would not be permitted to participate in the election process.

It will be noticed that there was no specific bar in the resolution on induction of new member. The only bar was that such new members would not be permitted to participate in the election process.

It further appears that the Secretary of the Cooperative Society in question by a communication dated 4.8.2009 informed the Chairman of the Cooperative Society in question regarding details of the new members inducted after 11.7.2009. Copy of the said communication dated 4.8.2009 has been filed Annexure 7 to the writ petition.

We have heard Sri R.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rakesh Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5, and perused the record.

It is submitted by Sri R.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners that Administrator appointed for managing the affairs of a Cooperative Society after the term of the Committee of Management comes to an end has no power to induct to enrol new members. He place reliance on the following decisions:

K. Shantharaj and another v. M.L. Nagaraj and others, (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 37.

Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala v. T.A. Kuttappan and others, (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 127.

In reply the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the points sought to be raised by the petitioners may be raised by them by availing of remedy available to them under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and the Rules framed thereunder after the conclusion of the election. He has placed reliance on decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.6861 (M/B) of 2009.

It is further submitted by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Shantharaj and another v. M.L. Nagaraj and others (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, dealt with the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 while the decision in Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala v. T.A. Kuttappan and others (supra) dealt with the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. The language as used in subsection (6) of Section 29 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is not exactly similar to the language used in the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 and the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. In the circumstances, the submission proceeds, that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the present case.

It is evident from the averments made in the writ petition itself that the election programme for holding election in respect of the petitioners'' Cooperative Society has already been announced.

We are of the opinion that as the election process has already started, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In case, the petitioners have any grievance regarding failure to comply with the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 or the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 or the byelaws of the Cooperative Society in question, which may have materially affected the result of the election to the Cooperative Society in question, it will be open to the petitioners to seek remedy in this regard under the provisions of Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 read with Rules 444C and 229 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 after the conclusion of the election.

In the circumstances, we are not going into the merits of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as the same may be raised by the petitioners while availing of remedy under the aforesaid provisions after the conclusion of the election.

In consequence of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.

(Petition dismissed)