DEORAJ versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 920 · Decided: 06-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DEORAJ 
V. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
APRIL 6, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960-Sections 73G and /44Y-
Election of Chairman of the Board-Notification of election programme-
C Single nomination paper filed by one of the directors of the Board, on scrutiny 
nomination filed found in order and not withdrawn-Non declaration of result 
by returning officer on the date fixed on the ground of incomplete quorum at 
the Special meeting, staying the Meeting despite the candidate insisting 
declaration of result-Rejection of interim relief by High Court-On appeal 
held: Case made out for grant of interim relief-Term of the Chairman being 
D one year, of which and six months having expired already, Court ought to 
have granted interim relief Order of High Court set aside-Constitution of 
India, 1950-Artic/e 136. 
The appellant was one of the 8 Directors to look after th·e 
management and working of a Co-operative Society. The term of the 
E Board of Directors is five years but the Chairman is elected every year 
for a term of one year each. As the term of the Chairman previously 
elected was coming to an end, the election of new Chairman was to be 
held. Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer notified the election programme. 
Appellant, one of the Directors of the Board filed his nomination paper. 
F No other nomination was filed. On scrutiny of the nomination filed by the 
appellant, it was found to be in order and also there was no withdrawal 
of the nomination. On the date fixed for the declaration of the result of 
the election the Returning Officer did not declare the result as the quorum 
of the special meeting was incomplete and stayed the special meeting even 
though the appellant insisted on his being declared as the duly elected 
G Chairman as he was the only one nominated. 
H 
Appellant filed writ petition seeking quashing of the order of the 
Returning Officer and that he be declared the duly elected Chairman and 
also sought for an ad-interim writ to the same effect. In the meantime, 
920 
I 
,""l 
DEORA.I r. STA TE 
921 
the Collector announced fresh election programme. The whole process of A 
election was directed to be commenced from the beginning. Appellant filed 
an application for amendment seeking setting aside of the election 
programme declared and an ad-interim writ seeking suspension of the 
election proposed to be held afresh. Division Bench of High Court rejected 
the prayer for interim relief. Hence the present appca!. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, a foolproof case for the grant of 
interim relief was made out in favour of the petitioner in the High Court 
on the basis of the material available before the Court. There was only 
one nomination filed which was found to be in order and was not 
withdrawn. There was no contest. Nothing had remained to be done at 
the meeting of the Committee which was to be convened only for the 
purpose of declaring the result. Nothing was to be put to vote. Holding of 
B 
c 
a meeting was only for the purpose or performing the formality of 
declaring the appellant as elected. In fact the election programme, as D 
notified, itself contemplated the meeting for voting and counting if felt 
necessary. The provision as to quorum lost all its significance. May be the 
,.. 
directors havir.g learnt of there being a single valid nomination and that 
too not withdrawn, also knew that the result of the election was a fait 
accompli, therefore, did not want to take the trouble of even coming to 
the venue of the meeting. 1926-D-GI 
E 
1.2. Unless something was brought to the notice of the Court either 
by way of material in the shape of documents or affidavits or even by way 
of a plea raised before the Court which could come in the way of the relief 
being granted to the writ petitioner, in the .case of such a nature, the F 
interim relief ought to have been granted. The writ petitioner-appellant 
is right in submitting that the election was for a period of one year out of 
which a little less than half of the time has already elapsed and in the 
absence of interim relief being granted to him there is nothing which would 
survive for being granted given to him by way of relief at the end of the 
final hearing. Therefore, the order of High Court rejecting the prayer of G 
interim relief is set aside. The respondents are directed to announce the 
result of the election in accordance with the 

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