LexPADMASINGHJI BAJIRAO PATIL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
PADMASINGHJI BAJIRAO PATIL AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
·-
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
<f
SEPTEMBER 16, 1999
B
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.]
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960:
c
S. 144-T-Election disputes-Order by Commissioner or specified
officer-To be final and conclusive-Provision challenged as there is no
-
corrective machinery by way of appeal or revision provided against the
order 11/s. 144-T, and it is violcftive of Article 14 of the Constitution-Held.
the provision does not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness-S. 144-T was
D
enacted with a view to provide for a specific machinery for adjudication of
election disputes relating to big institutions-It confers only limited powers
for adjudicating election disputes qua specific societies only and there is a
clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved by Chapter XI A of the
Act-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14.
E
Chapadgaon Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. and Ors., v.
Collector of Ahmednagar and Ors., (1989) Mh. L.J. 872, approved.
-
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12431 of
1996 Etc. Etc.
pr
From the' Judgment and order dated 10.1.96 of the Bombay High Court
in W.P. No. 5759of1995.
A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellants.
G.B. Sathe, for the Respondents.
·~
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Delay condoned in SLP(C)No. 14075/99 (CC.5231/96).
Leave granted in SLP (C) 14075/99 (CC 5231/96) and SLP (C) No. 21615/96.
H
660
-
..r-•
P.B.PATILv.STATE
661
Challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 144-T of the A
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act') failed before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and the
Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated January
10, 1996. These appeals by special leave put that judgment of the Bombay
High Court in issue before us.
B
Section 144-T of the Act lays down:
"144-T. Disputes relating to elections to be submitted to the
Commissioner or other specified officer.-{ I) Notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 91 or any other provisions of this Act, any C
dispute relating to an election shall be referred to the Commissioner
of the Division in which such election is held or to an officer not
below the rank of Additional Commissioner of a Division authorised
by the State Government in this behalf (hereinafter in this Section
either of them as the context may require is referred to as "the specified
Officer"
(2) Such reference may be made by an aggrieved party by
presenting an election petition to the specified officer, within a period
of two months from the date of declaration of the result of the
election;
Provided that, the specified officer may admit any petition after
the expiry of that period, if the petitioner satisfies the specified officer
that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the petition within the
.said period.
(3) in exercising the functions conferred on him by or under this
Chapter, the specified officer shall have the same powers as are
vested in a Court in respect of-
(a) proof of facts by affidavit;
(b) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and
examining him on oath;
( c) compelling discovery of the production of documents; and
D
E
F
G
(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses.
H
662
··A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
In "the case of any such affid~vit, an officer appointed by the
specified officer in this behalf may administer the oath to the deponent.
(4) Subject to any rules made by the State Government in this
behalf, any such petition shall be heard and disposed of by the
specified officer as expeditiously as possible. An order made by the
specified officer on such petition shall be final and conclusive and
shall not be called in question in any Court."
The basic grounds on which the chalienge was made to the constitutional
validitY of the aforesaid provisions were; (a) that there is no corrective
C machinery by way of appeal ·or revision· provided against the order of the
Commissioner under Section I 44-T and (b) that it was violative of Article I 4
of the Constitution of India.
From a perusal of the Scheme of the Act, it appears that Section I 44-
T was enacted with a view to provide for a separate machinery for adjudication
D of election disputes relating to big institutions. This Section conExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.