PUNDLIK versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 977 · Decided: 25-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PUNDLIK 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 25, 2005 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Election to Committee 
Rules, 1971-Rule 5 (2)-Nomination of appellant by Managing Committee 
of the Sangh by replacing another member as its representative for the 
election to Maha Sangh-Collector rejecting the nomination of the appellant 
as being improper-Writ Petition filed by appellant before High Court was 
dismissed-Correctness of-Held, under the Rules, a Society can change the 
name of a representative within the stipulated period-On facts, the Sangh 
has nominated the name of the appellant, who got maximum number of votes, 
within the stipulated period-Hence, the Collector is duty bound to effect 
change of the representative of the Sangh. 
Appellant and respondent no. 7 were elected members of Managing 
Committee of respondent no. 6 Sangh registered under the Maharashtra 
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Respondent no. 3 Maha Sangh directed 
Sangh to send a name of its representative before a specified date for the 
election of Maha Sangh. The Sangh convened a meeting of the Managing 
Committee and unanimously decided the name of respondent no. 7 as the 
representative of the Sangh. The Maha Sangh asked the Sangh to send 
the name of its representative afresh in light of amended bye-laws. The 
Sangh took the same decision to send the name of respondent no. 7 as its 
representative. Respondent no. 2 -
Collector published the programme 
of various stages upto finalisation of the voters' list in accordance with 
the provisions of the Maharashtra specified Co-operative Societies Election 
to Committee Rules, 1971 and sent a communication to the Sangh that it 
can change the name of its representative, if it wanted to do so, within a 
specified date. Pursuant to the communication, the Sangh convened a 
meeting of the Managing Committee and decided to send the name of the 
appellant as its representative of the Sangh for the election of Maha Sangh 
and passed a Resolution accordingly. The Collector finalised voters' list 
and publisbed it. The Collector informed the appellant that in the list of 
subjects of the meeting of its Sangh, there was no subject for changing the 
name of the representative of the Sangh and therefore, the selection of the 
977 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
978 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A appellant by the Sangh in its meeting was improper. 
The appellant filed a Writ Petition before High Court challenging the 
action of the Collector. The High Court held the Writ Petition was not 
maintainable on the ground that the election process had already started 
B and hence dismissed the Writ Petition. 
In appeal, the appellant contended that the Collector was bound to 
effect change as per the Resolution passe<l by the Sangh in its meeting 
since a statutory right has been conferred on the Sangh to change its 
representative under the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies 
C Election to Committee Rules, 1971. 
The respondents raised a preliminary objection as to the 
maintainability of the Special Leave Petition by the appellant contending 
that the appellant suppressed material facts in his Petition that seven 
members of the Managing Committee of the Sangh has filed a substantive 
D Writ Petition before High Court which is still pending. On merits, the 
respondents contended that the preparation of election roll is an 
intermediate and integral process of election and that the Courts cannot 
interfere as the election process had already started; that the change of 
representative of the Sangh' was not on agenda of the meeting of the Sangh 
E and no proper Resolution could have been passed in the meeting; that the 
decision of the Sangh in nominating the appellant as its representative was 
contrary to the bye-laws of the Sangh since the appellant had not obtained 
majority votes; that under Rule 81 of the Rules, the appellant can only 
file an election petition challenging the action of the Collector. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. It is open to the appellant to approach this Court against 
a decision of the High Court after his Writ Petition was dismissed. The 
pendency of the Writ Petition filed by seven members of the Managing 
Committee before the High Court cannot prevent the appellant from 
G approaching this Court. Non-disclos,ure of fact of filing a writ petition by 
members of the Managing Committee of res

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