RAMCHANDRA GANPAT SHINDE AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 17-08-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAMCHANDRA GANPAT SHINDE AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 17, 1993 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Art. 226-0rder obtained by collusion and con-
trary to statutory mandate-Third party to the proceedings approaching High 
Court in fresh wlit proceedings-Whether that Cowt can review its own order 
A 
B 
in independent proceedings under A it. 226-Held, where the process is abused C 
and an order obtained by collusion and fraud on the Cowt, either High Court, 
or Suprente Coult, can co"ect such order 
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 196(}-S.73G, Ch.XI-
Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules 
1971-R4-Preparation of list of vote1s-Held, shall be prepared by the 
society for the year in which general election is due to be held-Members as 
on 30th June of the year immediately preceding the year in which election due 
alone to be included-Validity of list approved and published by Collector, 
held, not affected by postponement of election;~Ss.77-JB, s.144T, Rr.6, 16 .. 
Costs-Where non-contesting respondents set the law in motion, had 
the benefit thereon and remained deliberately ex- parte, held, costs may be 
awarded-Constitution of India, Art. 142 
D 
E 
The term of office of the Committee of Shri Vathal Sakhar Sehakari 
Karkhana Ltd. was due to expire on December 3, 1991. The Dt. Collector F 
who was the competent authority initiated the election process, and the 
final list of voters was pnblished on December 17, 1991. 
The Government, in exercise of its powers under s.77-IB of the 
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 postponed the conduct of G 
elections to the Committees of all co-operative societies except those 
covered by orders of courts, till, September 30, 1992. 
On July 13, 1992, two members-More and Mule - filed a writ petition 
in the High Court for a mandamus to the Dt. Collector and election officer 
to conduct the election forthwith after September 3Q, 1992. By consent of H 
589 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A the Society through its Chairman - A.K. Patil - the Division Bench directed 
that since the election had been postponed to September 30, 1992 ·by order 
of the government, the process of election to the Committee shall com-
mence from October l, 1992. On September 15, 1992, More.and Mule filed 
another writ petition for a direction to hold elections on the basis of the 
B final list of voters published on December 17, 1991. Again A.K. Patil took 
notice, and by consent a fresh list of voters was directed to be drawn up 
on the basis of the provisional list of voters as on June 30, 1992, and for 
elections thereafter to be held. 
On becoming aware of the above order, the appellants, who were not 
C parties to the earlier petitions, filed a writ petition to modify the order and 
to direct that the elections be l)eld on the basis of the final voters list 
published on December 17, 1991. 
D 
E 
The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition in limine. 
In this court, the appellants contended that A.K. Patil had got 2000 
members enrolled after December 17, 1991. They alleged that fearing he 
would lose the elections, he had colluded with More and Mule, abused the 
process of the Court and played a fraud ou the court to make the list of 
voters to be as ou June 30, 1992 and to conduct elections on that basis. 
For the Society it was contended that the remedy lay in an election 
petition and not in a writ; that the State Government had postponed the 
election due to drought and the sugarcane growers who had become 
members in the interregnum were entitled to exercise their franchise; and 
that "general elections due" meant due according to the law as on the date 
F when the elections are to be held. A.K. Patil, it was submitted, had secured 
more. than 4-5 thousand votes while the new members enrolled were only 
2000, and interference nnder Art. 136 was not warranted. There being no 
stay of elections, the election process had been completed by order of this 
Court except for the declaration of results. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. Rule 4 requires that the provisional list of voters shall be 
prepared by every society "in the year in which general election is dzie to be 
held". S.73-G, provisions in Chapter XIA and the bye-laws read with Rule 
H 4 envisage that the election c.to the managing committee should be con-
:
R.G. SHINDE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
591 
ducted before
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.