Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10392 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 26017 Of 2013)
RAJKOT DISTT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ………APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ………RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10393-10394 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 13201-13202 Of 2012),
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10395-10398 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C)Nos.12219-12222 Of 2012),
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10399 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29726 Of 2013),
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10400 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27573 Of 2013),
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10401 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29727 Of 2013)
And
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10402 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29728 Of 2013
J U D G M E N T
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
The applications for impleadment filed in the
SLP(C) Nos. 29726 of 2013, 29727 of 2013 and 29728 of
Page 1
2
2013 are allowed. Leave granted in all the special
leave petitions.
2. The appellants before this Court have filed
these appeals questioning the correctness of the
impugned orders dated 15.11.2011, 30.1.2012 (passed
by the Division Bench) and common impugned order
dated 04.07.2013 (passed by the full Bench) of the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.
3. Since all the appeals are identical in nature,
we would refer to the facts of the case arising out
of Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) NO. 26017 of 2013 for the
sake of convenience and brevity and for examining the
rival legal contentions urged in these appeals.
4. The State of Gujarat enacted and put on the
JUDGMENT
statute book, Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act of
1961 (in short “the Act”) in order to consolidate
and amend the laws relating to the cooperative
societies in the State of Gujarat. Thereafter, the
Act was amended by the Act of 1982. Initially, as
per the Act of 1961, the Managing Committee of the
Co-operative Society was to be constituted in
accordance with the Act, Rules and bye-laws. By the
Page 2
3
Act of 1982, the proviso was inserted by way of an
amendment to the effect that so far as the committee
of a society falling in the category of Section
74C(1) of the Act is concerned, the rotation for
retirement, if provided by the bye-laws of a
particular number of members of the Managing
Committee shall cease to remain in force.
5. Further, as per the Act of 1982, Section 74C
together with the other provisions of the amending
Act was brought on the statute book, which provided
that the election of the members of the Managing
Committee/Board and the office bearers on the
committees of such specified societies shall be
conducted in the manner laid down by or under
JUDGMENT
Chapter XI-A of the Act, which was also
simultaneously inserted by way of amendment Act of
1982, for conducting elections to the committees and
office bearers of certain societies which are so
specified under Section 74C(1) of the Act. As per
the scheme of the said chapter, the election of such
specified societies is required to be held on such
date or dates as the Collector may fix under his
Page 3
4
control. Prior to the amendment, the election of
the managing committee was to be conducted by the
society itself as per its registered bye-laws. So
far as the societies included as specified societies
under Section 74C(1) of the Act are concerned, a
separate mode of conducting election was provided
and the power of conducting such election was given
to the Collector notwithstanding anything contained
in the bye-laws of such societies. The said aspect
was made clear under the provisions of Section 74(C)
(2) and (3) of the Act which were inserted by way of
amending Act of 1982. Chapter XI-A of the Act
provides for separate mode for deciding the election
dispute by Election Tribunal. Section 145(U) of the
JUDGMENT
Act provided the State Government with rule making
power and to regulate all or any of the other
matters relating to the various stages of elections
including preparation of the list of voters.
6. In exercise of the powers conferred upon the
State Government under Section 168 read with Sections
145(A), 145(U) and 145(Y), the State Government of
Gujarat framed the Gujarat Specified Co-operative
Page 4
5
Societies Election to Committee Rules of 1982 (in
short “the Rules”). These Rules provide for various
stages of election from the preparation of the voters
list till the result is declared and further
consequential steps to be taken in the process. In
the year 1987, Rules 3-A and 3-B were inserted in the
Rules of 1982 by the Rule Making Authority which
provided for delimitation of the constituencies in
the respective society/societies, for the purpose of
conducting election of the Managing Committee Members
and a separate procedure was provided for election of
74B
members reserved in sub- section (1) of Section
of the Act.
7. The constitutional validity of the amended
JUDGMENT
provisions of the Act of 1982 was challenged before
the High Court in the case of Amreli District Co-
operative Sale and Purchase Union Ltd. v . State of
1
Gujarat . The Division Bench of the High Court
declared Sections 17(A), 24, 51(2), 69 and also the
proviso to Section 74 as ultra vires the
Constitution. However, the provisions of Sections
74A, 74B, 74C, 74D, 76A, 76B, 80(A) and 80(2) were
1
(1984) 2 GLR 1244
Page 5
6
upheld. The said matters were carried before this
Court, but subsequently came to be withdrawn.
Therefore, the decision of the Gujarat High Court in
the aforesaid case became final and has been
operating since.
8. Subsequently, certain provisions were deleted
but Section 74C and other provisions in relation to
the conduct of election, including Chapter XI A and
the Rules, remained in the statute book. Therefore,
legal position remained as per the original Act even
after the Amendment Act of 1982. The election of the
Managing Committee members of a society other than
the specified societies was required to be held as
per the bye laws of such societies. Whereas, so far
JUDGMENT
as the specified societies covered by Section 74C(1)
of the Act are concerned, the election was required
to be held as per Chapter XI A read with the Rules of
1982.
9. A legal question for interpretation to Rule 3-A
(8) and also the validity of bye-laws clause No.
35(1)(A) of Sabarkantha Milk Producers Union Ltd.
arose before the High Court in the case of Antakampa
Page 6
7
Milk Producers Co-operative Society Limited v.
2
Sabarkantha Milk Producers Union Ltd. . The learned
Single Judge of the High Court in the said case held
that Section 74C sub Section (3) of the Act, has an
overriding effect on any other bye-laws of such
society. It was also found that as per Rule 3-A (8) ,
the number of constituencies have to be equal to the
total number of seats excluding two reserved seats as
provided under Section 74B of the Act. The learned
Single Judge in the said case found that the bye law
No. 35(1)(A), provided seats for more than one person
for each constituency and therefore, the bye laws
were not in conformity with Rule 3-A (8) of the Rules
and found that the bye-laws can operate to the extent
JUDGMENT
of 7 representatives to be elected from 7 separate
constituencies of a Specified Cooperative Society and
therefore, the High Court has held the Rule 3-A(8) of
the Rules as valid to that extent only.
10. In the meanwhile, the Division Bench of the
Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Sadwadar Seva
3
Sahkari Mandali Ltd. & Ors. v . State of Gujarat ,
2
(2004)1 GLR 310
3
(2010) 3 GLR 2154
Page 7
8
went into the case once again with regard to the
holding of the election to the Managing Committee of
the Bank in accordance with Rule 3-A (8) of the
Rules. The Division Bench found that when Rule 3-A
(8) and Rule 43 are examined in juxtaposition, it has
held that the object and intendment of the said Rules
and the field of the operation of the said two
provisions are different inasmuch as the former deals
with “constituencies” bifurcated on the
“territorial/zone basis”. The Division Bench did
consider the view taken by the learned Single Judge
of Gujarat High Court in the case of Antakampa Milk
Producers Co-operative Society Limited (supra) and
found that in the said case, the constituencies were
JUDGMENT
bifurcated zone or territory wise.
11. Again the question for consideration of the
provisions of Rule 3-A (8) read with Section 74C of
the Act arose in the case of Khanodar Milk Producers
Co-operative Societies Ltd. and Others v . State of
4
Gujarat . The second Division Bench of the High Court
found that the bye law providing more than one
representative to be elected in more than one
4
(2012)1 GLH 245
Page 8
9
constituency would be in contravention of Rule 3-A
(8) and it is held that, in the case of Sadvadar
Sahkari (supra), the members of the society were
comprised of various classes of societies, whereas in
the case of Antakampa Milk Producers Cooperative
Society Ltd. , the members constituted homogeneous
group and not heterogeneous group. Therefore,
adopting the decision of the case Antakampa Milk
Producers Cooperative Society Ltd. , the Division
Bench set aside the bye laws clause No. 35 (1) of the
said Society which provides for voting right for more
than one seat in one constituency.
12. Further, the constitutional validity of Rule 3-A
(8) of the Rules was again challenged before the High
JUDGMENT
Court of Gujarat, in the case of Banaskantha
District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v .
5
State of Gujarat , wherein the Division Bench of the
High Court held that if any of the Rules are lawfully
framed under the provisions of the Act and
restrictions were imposed in relation to the subject
matter of any of the clauses of the registered bye
laws of the Society, such restrictions must be
5
(2012) 2 GLR 1522
Page 9
10
adhered to by it and any such clause in the bye-laws
which is in violation of the restriction imposed by
the Rules should be deleted. It was further held that
the State Government while framing the impugned
provisions of the Rules has not deviated from the
principles mentioned under Section 74C (3) of the
Act, but it has only created a position by making
provisions of the election of members from the
General Body. The Division Bench of the High Court
held that Rule 3-A (8) of the Rules is neither in
conflict with any of the provisions of the Act nor
was it held to be bad in law for want of Authority of
the delegated legislation. Therefore, Rule 3-A(8) of
the Rules was held to be legal and valid by the High
JUDGMENT
Court by giving its reasons.
13. Similar questions regarding the legality and
validity of Rule 3-A(8) of the Rules arose when the
present group of appeals were listed before the High
Court. The Division Bench of the High Court
formulated the following legal issues and referred
the same to the full Bench:
(1) Whether Rule 3-A of the Rules introduced by
Page 10
11
the amendment dated 10.08.1987 could be
applied to the societies bye-laws which
provide for a single constituency?
(2) Whether the scheme of the Rules permit the
specified societies having a single
constituency, more than one seat for one
constituency and whether members of such
society can legally be permitted to vote for
more than one seat?
(3) Whether Collector has jurisdiction to make
an order for delimitation of the
constituencies, in absence of any proceeding
undertaken in accordance with Section 14 of
the Act?
JUDGMENT
(4) Whether delimitation of the constituencies
under Rule 3-A of the Rules can only be
territory-wise and/or whether delimitation
of the constituencies can be based upon
objects and activities of the member
societies or classes of individual members?
After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the
Page 11
12
full Bench of the High Court answered the legal
questions against the appellant-societies by passing
the impugned judgment and orders which are challenged
in these appeals before this Court urging various
legal grounds.
14. We have heard the learned counsel on both the
sides. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel
for the appellants that the findings and reasons
recorded in the impugned judgment while answering the
questions of law on the points referred to the Full
Bench are not only erroneous but also suffers from
error in law. Reliance was placed by them upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Ziley Singh
6
v. Registrar Cane Cooperative Societies Lucknow . It
JUDGMENT
is contented that the Rule 3-A (8) of the Rules is
contrary to the bye-laws of the appellant-Societies
and the statutory provisions of the Act. The Act
provides for amendments of the bye laws without
allowing the societies to get their bye laws amended
as per the procedure laid under the provisions of the
Act and without laying down certain guidelines in the
Rules for the amendment of the relevant clauses of
6
(1972) 1 SCC 719
Page 12
13
the registered bye-laws of the appellant-Societies .
Rule 3-A (8) takes away the vested rights conferred
upon the members of the society . The conferment of
power upon the Collector for carving out
delimitations of a Specified Co-operative
Society/Societies is contrary to the provisions of
the Act and Rules and asking the Chief Executive
Officer to prepare the draft constituencies by
dividing the area of societies into constituencies
would amount to taking away the right of its members
to exercise their vote in favour of all the
candidates who contest from the constituencies.
Therefore, the interpretation given to Section 3-A
(8) of the Rules and upholding the constitutional
JUDGMENT
validity in conferring such power upon the Collector
to demark the constituencies of appellant societies
infringes the rights of the members of the societies.
Hence, it is contended that the impugned judgment is
liable to be set aside.
15. The State Government has filed its counter
affidavit justifying the impugned judgment contending
that the findings and reasons recorded by the full
Page 13
14
Bench of the Gujarat High Court by answering the
questions referred to it are in accordance with law
and the same are on proper interpretation of the
relevant Rules 3-A (8) and (9) and Rule 43 of the
Rules which are in conformity with Chapter XI-A of
the Act.
16. On a careful examination of Rule 3-A (8) of the
Rules by us, it is made clear that the said provision
is aimed at geographical i.e. territory or zone wise
bifurcation or division. A salient feature of the
Rule 3-A is the delimitation of the constituencies
which includes all specified cooperative societies.
Once the area of operation of any society is more
than one village, Sub rule (8) would come into play
JUDGMENT
and the requirement of the number of constituencies
would be equal to the total number of seats,
excluding two seats reserved for the categories as
provided under section 74 B of the Act.
17. Further, the language of sub rule (9) of Rule 3-
A, makes it clear that the Rule Making Authority has
graced the Collector with the power to delimit the
constituency/constituencies prior to the publication
Page 14
15
of the voters list. The delimitation of the
constituency/constituencies should be prior to the
preparation of the voters’ list and/or in any case
simultaneous with the preparation of voters’ list but
the voters list has to be as per the delimitation of
the constituencies. The same is the case when the
delimitation of the constituency is required to be
made by the Collector prior to the publication of the
list of voters.
18. Thus, when sub-rule (8) is read along with sub-
rule (9) of Rule 3-A, where the society has the area
of operation exceeding one village, even if the bye
laws provide for single constituency, the seats
provided by the bye laws has to be equal to the
JUDGMENT
number of constituency/constituencies and therefore,
for each seat, a separate constituency would be
required to be delimited and if not so delimited by
the society, of its own, it would be required for the
Collector to exercise his power under sub rule (9) of
Rule 3-A of the Rules for the delimitation of the
constituency in accordance with the mandate of sub
rule (8) of Rule 3-A and thereafter, the process for
Page 15
16
publication of the voters’ list is to be given effect
to.
19. The power conferred with the Collector for the
delimitation of the constituency under sub rule (9)
is independent and separate and only applicable in
the case when the election of the members of any
Management Committee of specified society is
scheduled to be held. Further, as specified in the
sub rule (9) of Rule 3-A, such powers are to be
exercised by the Collector, notwithstanding anything
contained in the bye laws of such society. The
Collector has to exercise the power for delimitation
of the constituencies prior to the publication of the
list of voters. Further, as rightly stated by the
JUDGMENT
High Court in the impugned judgment that when a
specific power is conferred in a specific contingency
to a different authority, such power has to be read
in addition to the general power for the amendment in
the bye-laws. Thus, the bye laws of any society have
to be in conformity with the provisions of the Act
and the Rules.
20. It is obligatory on the part of any specified
Page 16
17
society to bring about the amendment in its
registered bye-laws in conformity with the
provisions of the Rules and more particularly
Rule 3-A (8) and (9). But if the society/societies
have not amended their bye laws, the same has to be
in conformity with the said Rules by getting suitably
amended; the effect of the Rule would not stand
nullified or inoperable. For this purpose sub rule
(9) gives the power to the Collector to delimit the
constituency/constituencies of a society. Thus, once
the area of operation of any society exceeds more
than one village as per sub rule (8), the number of
constituencies is required to be bifurcated by the
Collector in exercise of his power, so as to make it
JUDGMENT
equal to the total number of seats to see that
effective representation is given to the members of
the society for giving fair representation to its
members to elect their true representatives to
participate in the affairs of the Society as part of
the Managing Committee Members, as the society must
be represented by its elected representatives in a
democratic process to effectively represent in the
Page 17
18
Managing Committee which is an indispensible
parameter for the democratic institutions to achieve
the laudable object of Co-operative movement in the
country, which is the constitutional philosophy as
enshrined in Chapter XI A of the Constitution, which
has been inserted by way of constitutional
amendment.
21. Thus, the bye laws of any specified society
under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies
Act cannot be permitted to prevail over the statutory
Rule 3-A (8) & (9) of the Rules. The moment the area
of operation of any specified society exceeds one
village, sub rule (8) would come into play,
irrespective of the fact that whether members of such
JUDGMENT
society constitute homogenous group or heterogeneous
group.
22. Further, the elections to either the Managing
Committee or Board must be held democratically by
giving representation to all its members, as stated
in the preamble of our Constitution, which is held to
be the basic feature of the Constitution by the
constitutional Bench of this Court in the cases of
Page 18
19
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v . State of
7 8
Kerala and Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India . Under
Article 13 (2) of the Constitution of India, Rules
are also regarded as laws. However, the Rules and
laws framed by the State Legislatures and the
appropriate government cannot run parallel with the
principles of the Constitution and the statutory
objects of the Co-operative Societies Act cannot be
disregard as it would defeat the purpose of Section
243ZK of the Constitution of India (Ninety-Seventh
th
Amendment) Act 2011, inserted as per the 97
Constitutional Amendment, which provides for election
of the members of the Managing Committee or Board. If
the rules provide
JUDGMENT
that not more than 7 representatives can be elected
from a specified Co-operative Society to the Board or
Management Committee, then it is the duty of the
societies to adhere to it and not exceed the
specified number. Thus, the bye laws of a Co-
operative Society, in order to achieve the
constitutional object, must be brought at par with
7
(1973) 4 SCC 225
8
(2006)7 SCC 1
Page 19
20
the laws and statutory provisions of the Societies
Act. They cannot override the provisions of State or
Central laws. In Kuldip Nayar’s case (supra), this
Court after referring to various Constitutional Bench
judgments and other judgments of this Court for the
purpose of interpretation made by this Court in
relation to phrases used in the Preamble of the
Constitution of India such as “sovereign democratic
republic” and “Parliamentary democracy” as the basic
feature of the Constitution of India, held as under:-
“ 101. In the same case ( Indira Nehru Gandhi
case, reported in 1975 Supp SCC 1),
Chandrachud, J. in para 691 of his separate
judgment ruled as under: (SCC pp. 261-62)
“ Ordinary laws have to answer two
tests for their validity: (1) The law
must be within the legislative
competence of the legislature as
defined and specified in Chapter I,
Part XI of the Constitution, and (2)
it must not offend against the
provisions of Articles 13(1) and (2)
of the Constitution. ‘Basic
structure’, by the majority judgment,
is not a part of the fundamental
rights nor indeed a provision of the
Constitution . The theory of basic
structure is woven out of the
conspectus of the Constitution and
the amending power is subjected to it
because it is a constituent power.
‘The power to amend the fundamental
instrument cannot carry with it the
JUDGMENT
Page 20
21
power to destroy its essential
features’—this, in brief, is the arch
of the theory of basic structure. It
is wholly out of place in matters
relating to the validity of ordinary
laws made under the Constitution.”
XXX XXX XXX
142. Article 80(4) prescribes the manner
of voting and election of the
representatives of States for the Council
of States in the following terms:
“80. (4) The representatives of each
State in the Council of States shall
be elected by the elected Members of
the Legislative Assembly of the State
in accordance with the system of
proportional representation by means
of the single transferable vote.”
XXX XXX XXX
336. In the words of Jaganmohan Reddy, J.
( Kesavananda Bharati case reported in (1973)
4 SCC 225) in his separate judgment, the
1“elements of the basic structure are
indicated in the Preamble and translated in
the various provisions of the Constitution”
and the “edifice of our Constitution is
built upon and stands on several props”
which, if removed would result in the
Constitution collapsing and which include
the principles of “sovereign democratic
republic” and “parliamentary democracy”, a
polity which is “based on a representative
system in which people holding opposing view
to one another can be candidates and invite
the electorate to vote for them” (SCC p.
638, para 1159).
JUDGMENT
341. Some of the important holdings were
set down in para 92 of the aforementioned
( Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
Page 21
22
Commr . reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405)
judgment “for convenience” and to
“synopsise the formulations”. The holdings
included the following: (SCC p. 452)
“ 92 . ( 2 )( a ) The Constitution
contemplates a free and fair
election and vests comprehensive
responsibilities of superintendence,
direction and control of the conduct
of elections in the Election
Commission. This responsibility may
cover powers, duties and functions of
many sorts, administrative or other,
depending on the circumstances.
( b ) Two limitations at least are laid
on its plenary character in the
exercise thereof. Firstly, when
Parliament or any State Legislature
has made valid law relating to or in
connection with elections, the
Commission, shall act in conformity
with, not in violation of, such
provisions but where such law is
silent Article 324 is a reservoir of
power to act for the avowed purpose
of, not divorced from, pushing
forward a free and fair election
with expedition . Secondly, the
Commission shall be responsible to
the rule of law, act bona fide and be
amenable to the norms of natural
justice insofar as conformance to
such canons can reasonably and
realistically be required of it as
fairplay-in-action in a most
important area of the constitutional
order viz. elections. Fairness does
import an obligation to see that no
wrongdoer candidate benefits by his
own wrong. To put the matter beyond
doubt, natural justice enlivens and
applies to the specific case of order
JUDGMENT
Page 22
23
for total re-poll, although not in
full panoply but in flexible
practicability. Whether it has been
complied with is left open for the
Tribunal’s adjudication.”
343. The case Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu
(reported in (1992 Supp (2) SCC 651) also
resulted in similar views being reiterated by
this Court in the following words: (SCC p.
741, para 179)
“ 179. Democracy is a part of the
basic structure of our
Constitution; and rule of law, and
free and fair elections are basic
features of democracy . One of the
postulates of free and fair
elections is provision for
resolution of election disputes as
also adjudication of disputes
relating to subsequent
disqualifications by an independent
authority.”
(emphasis laid by this Court)
9
In Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India , this
JUDGMENT
Court has held as under:-
“ 229. Lord Greene said in 1948 in the
famous Wednesbury case (reported in (1948)
1 KB 223) that when a statute gave
discretion to an administrator to take a
decision, the scope of judicial review
would remain limited. He said that
interference was not permissible unless
one or the other of the following
conditions was satisfied, namely the order
was contrary to law, or relevant factors
were not considered, or irrelevant factors
were considered; or the decision was one
9
(2006) 2 SCC 1
Page 23
24
which no reasonable person could have
taken…….
257. Therefore, the well-recognised
position in law is that purity in the
electoral process and the conduct of the
elected representatives cannot be isolated
from the constitutional requirements.
“Democracy” and “free and fair election”
are inseparable twins. There is almost an
inseverable umbilical cord joining them.
In a democracy the little man—voter has
overwhelming
importance and cannot be
hijacked from the course of free and fair
elections……”.
(emphasis laid by this Court)
10
In Mohinder Singh Gill v . Chief Election Commr. ,
this Court has held as under:-
“2 . Every significant case has an
unwritten legend and indelible lesson.
This appeal is no exception, whatever its
formal result. The message, as we will see
at the end of the decision, relates to the
pervasive philosophy of democratic
elections which Sir Winston Churchill
vivified in matchless, words:
JUDGMENT
“At the bottom of all tributes
paid to democracy is the little
man, walking into a little
booth, with a little pencil,
making a little cross on a
little bit of paper — no amount
of rhetoric or voluminous
discussion can possibly diminish
the overwhelming importance of
the point.”
23. Democracy is government by the people.
It is a continual participative operation,
not a cataclysmic, periodic exercise. The
10
(1978) 1 SCC 405
Page 24
25
little man, in his multitude, marking his
vote at the poll does a social audit of
his Parliament plus political choice of
this proxy. Although the full flower of
participative Government rarely blossoms,
the minimum credential of popular
Government is appeal to the people after
every term for a renewal of confidence. So
we have adult franchise and general
elections as constitutional compulsions.
“The right of election is the very essence
of the constitution” (Junius). It needs
little argument to hold that the heart of
the Parliamentary system is free and fair
elections periodically held, based on
adult franchise, although social and
economic democracy may demand much more.
46 . It is an interesting sidelight that in
America it has been held to be but
fundamental fairness that the right to an
administrative hearing is given. Natural
justice is being given access to the
United Nations. It is notable that Mathew,
J. observed in Indira Gandhi (p. 513, see
p. 128, para 303)(reported in 1975 Supp
SCC 1):
“If the amending body really
exercised judicial power, that
power was exercised in violation
of the principles of natural
justice of audi alteram partem .
Even if a power is given to a
body without specifying that the
rules of natural justice should
be observed in exercising it,
the nature of the power would
call for its observance…………”
JUDGMENT
(emphasis laid by this Court)
In view of the law laid down by this Court in the
Page 25
26
aforesaid cases, we have to hold that the sub rules
(8) & (9) of Rule 3-A are applicable to the appellant
society/Societies as the area of operation is more
than one village and therefore the orders passed by
the Collector for the delimitation of the
constituency/constituencies cannot be said to be
illegal. Further, we hold that there will be no
proper representation of the voters to their
respective specified societies for electing
representatives of their area which would materially
affect the result of the election and the impugned
provisions and Rules are legally justifiable.
For the reasons stated supra, no relief can be
granted in favour of the appellant-societies by
JUDGMENT
setting aside the election notification and the
prayer for setting aside the impugned judgement and
orders. Hence, they deserve to be dismissed. The
respondents are directed to hold the election to the
specified societies as per sub rule (8) and (9) of
Rule 3-A of the Rules as are applicable to them under
the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act after the
delimitation of the constituency/constituencies of
Page 26
27
such societies are made by the Collector as stated
under sub-rule (9) of Rule 3-A of the Rules.
23. For the reasons stated supra, we do not find any
reasons whatsoever to interfere with the impugned
judgment and orders of the High Court. It is needless
to make observation that the State government and its
officers could not give effect to the provisions of
the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules for some
time on account of which some of the societies have
challenged the impugned provisions and Rules before
the High Court, even after litigation was concluded
by the Division Bench at one stage, the State and its
officers have not implemented the impugned provisions
and Rules without any valid reasons. The members of
JUDGMENT
the specified societies in the State have a right to
elect their true representatives to represent them as
Managing Committee or Board members of the District
Co-operative Societies and other allied societies
after de-limitation of the constituency/
constituencies and therefore, we direct them to see
that the impugned provisions and Rules must be
implemented forthwith without further delay and
Page 27
28
submit compliance report within 8 weeks from the date
of report of the copy of this order.
24. The appeals are dismissed. No Costs.
……………………………………………………………J.
[V. GOPALA GOWDA]
……………………………………………………………J.
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]
New Delhi,
November 19, 2014
JUDGMENT
Page 28
29
ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment COURT NO.11 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No(s). 26017/2013
RAJKOT DISTT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 13201-13202/2012
C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 12219-12222/2012
C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 29726/2013
C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 27573/2013
C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 29727/2013
C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 29728/2013
Date : 19/11/2014 These appeals was called on for JUDGMENT today.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Mohit D. Ram,Adv.
M/s. Khaitan & Co.
Mr. Devendra Singh,Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv.
Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.
Ms. Pratibha Jain,Adv.
Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv.
Mr. Vikash Singh,Adv.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the
judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Leave granted.
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed
judgment.
(VINOD KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
Page 29