BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. AND ANR. versus JAGANNATH S. SHAHANE AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 296 · Decided: 13-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. AND ANR. 
B 
v. 
I 
JAGANNATH S. SHAHANE AND ORS. 
MARCH 13, 1992 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 : Section 73 (2) (As 
inserted by Maharashtra Amendment Act XX of 1986). 
C 
Specified Society-Co-operative Bank-Board of Directors-Elec-
tion-Provision requiring Registrar to prescribe the maximum number of 
members on the Society held directo7)'7Purpose of Section 73 (2) Explained. 
Section 27 (3)-l'roviso-Deletion of Proviso-Effect of. 
D 
Elections to the Board of Directors of the appellant Bank, a specified 
co-operative Society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 
1960, were to be held as provided under Section 73 (G) of the Act read with 
Maharashtra Specified Co-operati.ve Societies (Elections to Committees) 
Rules, 1971. By the Maharashtra Act No. XLV of 1983 the Maharashtra 
Co-operative Societies Act was amended and a proviso was added to 
E 
sub-section (3) of Section 27. This amendment was challenged and the 
High Court declared the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27 as void 
and inoperative. Thereafter respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition 
in the High Court which was allowed by directing that all steps taken by 
the appellant bank for holding elections and all the steps taken on the 
F 
basis of provisc: to section 27 (3) were null and void. The parties aggrieved 
against the aforesaid decision filed appeals before this Court. During the 
. pendency of the appeals Section 73 of the Maharashtra Co-operative 
Societies Act was amended and sub-section (2) was added to it. Further by 
Act No. X of 1988 1st proviso to Section 27(3) was deleted. After the 
aforesaid changes in the 1960 Act, this Court, by its order dated March 
G 13, 1989, disposed of the appeals directing that elections to the Co-opera· 
Uve Societies may be held in accordance with the amended law. Thereafter 
the Collector declared the election programme of the appellant bank under 
which last date for filing nominations was 23.10.1991 last date for scrutiny 
.i 
, was 25.HU991, last date for withdrawal was 11.11.1991 and the date of 
H polling was fixed on 27.11.1991. By a notification dated 27th December, 
2% 
~ 
BEED CO-OP. BANK v. J.S. SHAHANE 
297 
.. 
1991 the State of Maharashtra postponed elections upto 1Sth April, 1992 • A 
fl \ 
Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition in the Bombay High 
Court challenging the election programme. By its judgment dated Novem-
ber 19, 1991 the High Court allowed the petition holding that (i) in view 
of the mandatory provision of section 73(2) it was incumbent on the B 
""'< 
Registrar of Co-operative Societies to prescribe the maximum number of 
members on the Committ._,r the appellant bank by publishing an order 
in the official gazette; (ii) since no such order was published, the election 
process fixed by the Collector was illegal and invalid; and (iii) the election 
process was in violation of this Court's order dated March 15, 1989. 
,,.. 
Against the decision of the High Court the Co-operative Bank filed an c 
~ 
appeal in this Court. 
·~~ 
On behalf of the appellant bank it was contended that (i) with the 
deletion of proviso to section 27(3), section 73(2) has become redundant; 
(ii) that the word 'may' in section 73(2) clearly meant that it was an 
enabling provision and the said sub-section does not cast any duty on the D 
Registrar to exercise the power of prescribing maximum number in every 
case but only confers upon him the discretion to make such an order if the 
circumstances enumerated in the said provision necessitated the exercise 
of such power; and (iii) since bye-law No. 28 of the Bank already prescribed 
'\. 
the maximum number of members in the Committee to 21 members and E 
j 
as such there was no question of passing any order under section 73(2). 
_...., 
For the respondents it was contended that unless the Regish-ar 
applied his naind in the light of Section 73(2) no elections could have been 
declared by the Collector. It was necessary for the Registrar to apply his 
mind as to whether the maximum number prescribed in the bye-laws of a F 
society was justified or not and thereafter issue an order and to publish 
~ 
the same in the official gazette. 
~. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The main purpose of introducing proviso to sub-section G 
(3) of Section 27 was to widen and make the scope of voters as broad based 
RI 
while electing

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