BHANDARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 501 · Decided: 10-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

BHANDARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. AND 
A 
ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 
(LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND 
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Ac~ 1960: 
Section 73A-'Designated officer'-Tenn of office-Maximum period--
Fixing of-Bar on holding office in more than one Society-Whether violative 
of Altic/es 14, 19(1)(c) and 19 (l)(g) of the Constitution of India. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
B 
c 
D 
Altic/es 14, 19(l)(c) and 19(1)(g~Section 73A of the Maharashtra 
Cooperative Societies Act, ]~ether violative of. 
Section 73A(l) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 
defines a 'designated officer' as the Chairman and the President and as 
lndudlng any officer of the Society as may be declared by the State E 
Government, but not an officer appointed or nominated by the State 
Government or by the Registrar. Such a 'designated officer' bas not been 
allowed to bold office in more than one Society In view of sub-sections (2) 
and (4) of section 73A and by sub-section (S) the maximum period avail-
able to a designated officer to continue in office bas been fixed in 
peremptory terms. 
In the present appeals, Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions, 
the Constitutional validity of section 73A of the above said Act bas been 
challenged as being violative of Articles 14, 19(l)(c) and 19(1)(g). 
F 
It was contended that the designated officers were entitled to G 
manage the affairs of the cooperative societies as entrusted to them by the 
members, without any Interference from the legislature; that the 
provisions separating the Chairman and the President from the other 
members of the Managing Committee in regard to the application of the 
restrictions were discriminatory; and that the power given to the State H 
501 
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[ 1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Government to declare any other officer or the society as a designated 
officer was bad and arbitrary in the absence or proper guidelines. 
B 
c 
Dismissing the appeals/petitions, this Court, 
HELD: 1. There is clear basis for selecting the category or persons 
to be referred to by the expression 'designated officer' for the purposes of 
sections 73A, 73C, 73D and 73E of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies 
Act, 1960 and the policy in this regard is perfectly reasonable, having 
regard to the object of the amendment. The provisions restrict the period 
for which a person either elected or appointed and is entitled to give 
directions in relation to business of that society, can remain in office. The 
object of the amendment is clearly discernible as preventing a person or 
a group or persons from monopolising the affairs of a society by exercising 
control thereon indefinitely for a long period. A cooperative society is not 
meant to be run as a close preserve of an individual or a group of persons. 
D 'Co- operative' has been understood as a form of organisation where 
persons voluntarily associate together on a basis of equality for the 
promotion of their economic interests. The emphasis is on 'Co-operation'. 
It is, therefore, desirable to have the active participation of as many 
members as may be possible. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for 
the Amending Act has mentioned that the object of the Act was not being 
E fully achieved as a group of persons were found holding the key positions 
in serveral important cooperative institutions simultaneously and for long 
periods, with a result that new leadership was not being built np to the 
desired extent. To check this unhealthy tendency and to give a more 
democratic character to the cooperative institutions, it was found neces-
F sary to prescribe the limitations in the statute itself by amendment. When 
after watching the effect of the earlier amendments, the legislature found 
that the goal was not fully achieved, and a further amendment was neces-
sary, the abovesaid provisions were inserted in the Act. All this has been 
done for realising the objective set out by the Act and is clearly in the 
public interest. (508 A-Fl 
G 
2. The basis of distinction made between the 'designated officers' as 
defined in the Act and the other members has clear nexus with the object 
which the amendment seeks to achieve. It has been firmly established that 
this Court cannot be called upon to embark on an enquiry into public 
H policy or investigate into questions of political wisdom or even to 
BHANDARA CO-OP. BANK v. 

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