Bombay High Court: The petition was filed challenging the inclusion of ineligible voters in the voter list, validity of bye-law amendments, jurisdictional orders issued by regulatory authorities, and also, sought to ensure compliance with legal requirements in the society’s governance and electoral processes. S.G. Mehare, J., held that the inclusion of certain individuals in the voter list was illegal due to their lack of eligibility as members of the society. The Court set aside the orders made by the Assistant Registrar and the State Government and ordered that the election results be declared excluding the votes of the disqualified individuals.
Background:
In the present case, the petitioner was a member of the Taklibhan Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd (respondent No.5) (‘Society’), a registered society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 Act. 414 persons were removed from the membership register as they were neither agriculturists nor residents of Taklibhan village through an order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (respondent No. 3).
The Society impugned this order before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Nashik Division (respondent No. 2) who stayed the said order.
The revision hearing was stretched out for a long time due to which the petitioner was constrained to file a petition which was disposed of by directing respondent No. 2 to dispose of the petition within a stipulated time. The revision was partly allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies for a fresh hearing.
On 26-02-2016, the final voter list for elections of the Society was issued, and since the order of the Assistant Registrar was set aside, the names of those 414 persons were included in the final voter list. The petitioner had filed another petition before the High Court seeking direction against the Assistant Registrar to dispose of the application remitted. Because of this direction, 393 persons were deleted from the membership register of the society. The petitioner also approached the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (respondent No.4) to delete those 393 persons but the impugned order was passed.
In the other petition, 393 persons whose names were deleted were impugned by two revisions before the Divisional Joint Registrar who dismissed those revisions. This order was impugned before the Minister, Co-operation Department, who then partly allowed the revisions and remitted the case to the Assistant Registrar for a fresh decision.
The disputed members had casted their votes in the election of the Society. The Court ordered that two separate lists must be submitted under the authority of the returning officer, wherein one would contain the votes of the members who are eligible and the other would contain the votes of the members who are disputed.
Analysis and Judgement:
The Court noted that there were two questions arising in this case:
-
Whether 393 respondents were eligible to be members of the Society. If not, could their names be deleted from the final voter list?
-
Whether the votes of these 393 so-called members should be counted.
On the aspect of extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court, the Court noted that the Assistant Registrar (Respondent No. 3) correctly held that they were not eligible to be members of the Society since the register of the members is the source of the voters list, and they were not eligible to be the voters. Therefore, in these peculiar circumstances, it cannot be said that once their names were published in the final voter list, this Court cannot disturb the election program by exercising the power under Article 226. Thus, this Court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction as there was patent illegality in admitting 393 persons as members.
The Court stated that Section 11 of the Act empowers the Registrar to decide whether the person is an agriculturist or not or whether any person resides in the area of the operation of the Society or not. Further, the Court said that the Assistant Registrar had correctly exercised his powers since as per Section 25A of the Act, the committee of the Society has to remove the names of the members who stand disqualified.
The Court also stated that such members who are not eligible to be members of the Society cannot exercise their right to vote and if they did so their vote would not be considered valid or legal.
Further, the order passed by the Minister was also impugned on the ground that there should not have been a second revision against the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar. To this, the Court reiterated the decision laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the revisional jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 154 of the Act wherein it held that the State Government has no power to re-examine the legality and propriety of the orders and exercise the same power again. Therefore, the Court held that the impugned order of the Minister was without jurisdiction and quashed the same.
The Court held that since there was illegality in admitting the 393 persons as members, the Court could exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and that adding such members to the voter list was defective because their membership was impugned long before the publication and this issue was sub-judice before the competent authority. It was also declared by the Court that since the 393 voters were not qualified, their votes should not be counted when declaring the election.
While disposing of the petitions, the Court held that the orders of the Divisional Joint Registrar and Assistant Registrar were restored, and their orders in the revision application also stand confirmed.
[Rahul v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1239, Decided on 30-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate S.S. Gangakhedkar
For Respondent — Advocate S.N. Kendre, Sr. Counsel V.D. Hon, Advocate A.V. Hon
