AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA S.D.V. AND P. SANGH LTD. AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 265 · Decided: 05-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA, AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA S.D.V. AND P. SANGH LTD. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 5, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND,DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committee 
Rules, 1971: 
B 
R. 81-Election-Amendment of bye-laws categorizing specified C 
Cooperative Societies into different classes-Preparation of voters list 
accordingly-Amendment held illegal-Writ petition for inclusion in electoral 
roll of those who, by virtue of amendment, were not so included-Direction 
by High Court to include their names in electoral roll-Plea that preparation 
of electoral roll being an intermediary stage of the process of election, High D 
Court in giving the direction committed error of jurisdiction-Held, r.81 shows 
that validity of the bye-laws cannot be gone into by the Tribunal-Respondents 
had no other remedy except to file an appeal before the appellate authority-
Amendment of bye-laws having been held by co-operative authorities, not in 
conformity with the law, the electoral roll prepared on the basis of such 
amendment would fall down-Such a finding on jurisdictional fact has been E 
rightly held by High Court as not perverse warranting interference under 
Article 227 of the Constitution of India-Constitution of India-Article 227. 
Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 
(2001 J 8 sec 509, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2553-2554 
of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.6.2001 of the Bombay High 
Court Bench at Aurangabad in W.P. No. 1319 and 618 of 1999. 
A.V. Savant, Arun Pednekar and V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellants. 
Uday U. Lalit, Sanjay V. Kharde, Naresh Kumar and Mukesh K. Giri 
for the Respondents. 
265 
F 
G 
H 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered by 
The appellant herein is a specified society. On August .31, 1997, the 
ieneral body meeting was held wherein it has proposed to amend the bye-
laws. It was resolved in the said general body meeting that the milk supply 
societies to the extent of 200 litres per day in 300 days for last three years 
B will be categorized as class 'A' so.cieties. It was also resolved that the milk 
supplying societies more that 50 litres of milk daily in 300 days will be 
categorized as Class 'B' societies for last three years and the societies supplying 
less th:m 50 litres of milk daily for 300 days for last three years will be 
categorized as Class 'C' grade societies and which would be called as nominal 
C members. On October 24, 1997, the Divisional Deputy Registrar Cooperative 
Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik accorded his approval to the amendment 
of the aforesaid bye-laws. It is not disputed that consequent upon the 
amendment in the bye-laws the voters' list was prepared for holding election 
for constituting the Managing Committee of the society. In the meanwhile 
the respondents herein filed an appeal against the amendment of bye-laws to 
D the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies (Dairy), Worli, Mumbai who allowed 
the appeal, holding the amendment of bye-laws to be illegal and inasmuch as 
the same was issued without giving notice to the members. A revision petition 
was filed against the appellate order which was also dismissed. Subsequently, 
the appellant took the matter to the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High 
E Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia. 
The Writ Petition has also been dismissed. 
It is relevant to mention here that respondents also filed a petition 
under Article 226 for direction to the Returning Officer for inclusion of their 
names in the electoral roll in view of the fact that the amendment in the bye-
F laws was struck down by the appellate authority. Both the writ petitions filed 
by the appellant and respondents were heard together. The appeal filed by the 
appellant was dismissed whereas the appeal preferred by the respondents 
herein was allowed and a direction was issued to the authority for inclusion 
of their names in the electoral roll. It is against the said judgment of the High 
Court the appellant is before us. 
G 
Learned counsel urged that the High Court ought not to have issued a 
direction for inclusion of the name of the respondents in electoral roll in view 
of the fact that the preparation of the electoral roll is an intermediary stage 
of the process of the election and as such the High 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.