Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
PADMASINGHJI BAJIRAO PATIL & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/09/1999
BENCH:
S. RAJENDRABABU, R.C.LAHOTI.
JUDGMENT:
DER
Delay condoned in SLP(C)No14075/99 (CC.5231/96).
Leave granted in SLP ( C ) 14075/99( CC 5231/96 ) and SLP (
C )
No.21615/96.
Challenge to the constitutional validity’ of Section
144-T of the 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 tlie 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.
Section 144-T of the Act lays down:
"144-T. Disputes relating to elections to be
submitted to the Commissioner or other specified officer. -
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 91 or any
other provisions of tills Act, any 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
mav 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
ofdeclaration of the result ofthe 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 he said period.
(3) in exercising tlie functions conferred on him by
or under this Chapter, tlie specified officer shall have the
same powers as are vested in a Court in respect of-
(a) proof offacts by affidavit;
(b) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any
person and examining him on oath ;
(c) compelling discover of the production of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
documents; and
(d) issuing commissions for the examination of
witnesses.
In the case of any such affidavit, 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 challenge was made to
the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provisions
were; (a) that there is no corrective machinery by way of
appeal or revision provided against the order of the
Commissioner under Section 144-T and (b) that it was
violative of Article 14 ofthe Constitution of India.
From a perusal of the Scheme of the A.ct. it appears
that Section 144-T was enacted with a view to provide for a
separate machinery tor adjudication of election disputes
relating to big institutions. This Section 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. our opinion the provision does not suffer from the
vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness either.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in
Chapadgaon Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. And
Others Vs. Collector of Ahmcdnagar and Others 1989 Mh.
L.J.. 872 considered the constitutional validity of Section
144-T of the Act. The precise argument raised in the
present case were also raised before the High Court in that
case. The same were considered at great length and
repelled. The Division Bench noticed that the area and
field covered by the provisions were distinct and separate
and by process of comparative study of distinct and separate
provisions. Section 144-T of the Act could not be struck
down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was
also opined that the classification made was reasonable and
had a clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved by
Chapter-XIA of the Act, namely, that the elections be
conducted under the control of the Collector.
The reasoning given by the Bombay High Court in
Chapadgaon Vividh Karvakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. And
Others (supra) is
correct and appeals to us. That judgment of the
Division Bench has been relied upon in the instant case by
the High Court. In the view that we have taken, no fault
can be found with the impugned judgment of the High Court,
repelling the challenge to the constitutional validity of
Section 144-T of the Act.
These appeals have thus no merits and are dismissed.
No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3