http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2084 of 2004

PETITIONER: Deoraj

RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/04/2004

BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 2617 OF 2004)

R.C. Lahoti, J.   Leave granted. Tuljabhavani Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Va Prakriya Sangh  Maryadit, Osmanabad (hereinafter ’the Sangh’, for short) is a  cooperative society falling in one of the categories included in Section  73G of the Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act, 1960 (hereinafter,  ’the Act’ for short).  Section 144Y of the Act makes special provision  for election of officers of such societies.  It reads as under:- "144Y.  Special provision for election of  officers of specified societies

       (1)     This section shall apply only to  election of officers by members of committees of  societies belonging to the categories specified in  section 73-G.

       (2)     After the election of the members of  the committee and, where necessary, co-option  or  appointment, as the case may be, of members to  the reserved seats under section 73-B or whenever  such election is due, the election of the officer or  officers of any such society shall be held as  provided in its bye-laws but any meeting of the  committee for this purpose shall be presided over  by the Collector or an officer nominated by him in  this behalf."

Here itself it would be relevant to reproduce the relevant bye- laws of the society as under:- "Bye-law No.18.3:       Every year after annual General  Body Meeting, in first meeting  of Board of Directors, as per  provisions of law, Chairman  shall be elected for a period of  one year.  Till the new  Chairman is elected, previous  Chairman should continue to  hold the post.

Bye-law No.18.11: Out of total number of elected  Directors, if 50 percent plus one  Directors (including nominated  directors) are present for  meeting then, corum (sic.,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

quorum) for the meeting shall  be complete."

       The Sangh has a Board of Directors consisting of eight Directors  to look after the management and working of the Sangh.  The present  Board of Directors which includes the appellant also as a Director was  elected on 27.3.2000.  The term of the Board is five years but the  Chairman is elected every year for a term of one year each.  The  previous three Chairmen were elected respectively in the meetings  held on 12.10.2000, 12.11.2001, 9.12.2002.  As the term of the  Chairman previously elected on 9.12.2002 was coming to an end, the  election of new Chairman, was notified to be held on 14.11.2003 so as  to elect the Chairman for the next term of one year.  The Collector,  Osmanabad was to preside over the meeting called for the purpose.   Collector, Osmanabad by his order dated 29.11.2003 appointed  Tehsildar, Osmanabad as the Returning Officer.  The election  programme was notified by Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer on  3.12.2003 as under:- "Election Programme for the post of Chairman schedule  on 11.12.2003 Date Time Stages of Election

11.12.2003 11.00 to  12.00 a.m. Distribution of nomination papers  & acceptance of nomination  papers

11.12.2003 12.00 noon  to 12.15 p.m. Scrutiny of nomination papers

11.12.2003 12.30 p.m. to  13.00 p.m. Withdrawal of nomination papers

11.12.2003 14.00 noon If felt necessary, then voting,  counting & declaration of result  of election.                                         (underlining by us)

       Simultaneously with the notification of the election programme,  the Managing Director of the Sangh issued notices to all the Directors  informing them of the meeting scheduled to be held at 2 p.m. on  11.12.2003.  The election programme was also communicated to all  the Directors.

       On 11.12.2003, at 11.48 a.m. the appellant filed his nomination  paper the receipt whereof was issued by the Returning Officer.  There  was no other nomination filed.  On scrutiny the nomination filed by the  appellant was found to be in order.  There was no withdrawal.

       At 2 p.m. only four Directors, including the appellant, out of the  total eight Directors of the Sangh were present.  The Returning Officer  awaited for the arrival of other Directors for ten minutes.  At 10  minutes past 2 p.m., the Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer drew up the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

proceedings of special meeting recording all the facts relating to the  notification of election, the filing of single nomination paper, its  scrutiny and no withdrawal and the fact that only four Directors had  turned up for the meeting.  In the concluding paragraphs the  Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer recorded as under:-         "The Board of Directors of the said society  consist of total 8 directors.   The coram for special  meeting is half + 1 Director. But 4 directors are  present for the meeting, the coram for the meeting  is not completed.  Therefore, the said special  meeting is stayed.  It is declared so.

       The Returning Officer has declared that the  said special meeting is being stayed, will be  communicated to the Collector, Osmanabad,  thereafter, further proceedings will be done as per  his orders.  After giving vote of thank to the  present Directors, the meeting is declared to be  over.

Date : 11.12.2003"

       It appears that the appellant insisted on his being declared as  the duly elected Chairman in view of he only being the duly nominated  candidate for the office of Chairman.  But he received no response.   On 17.12.2003, he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay,  Bench at Aurangabad seeking quashing of the order dated 11.12.2003  passed by the Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer and a command to  complete the election programme as scheduled by resuming the same  from the stage at which it had stopped.  In substance the appellant  sought for his being declared the duly elected Chairman of the Sangh.   The appellant also sought for an ad-interim writ to the same effect.  

       The petition remained pending alongwith the prayer for interim  relief. In the meantime, on 26.12.2003, the Collector announced fresh  election programme convening a meeting to be held on 5.1.2004.  The  whole process of election was directed to be commenced from the  beginning.  The appellant moved an application for amendment in the  writ petition seeking setting aside of the election programme declared  on 26.12.2003 and an ad-interim writ seeking suspension of the  election proposed to be held afresh.  By the impugned order dated  5.1.2004, the Division Bench of the High Court directed rule to issue in  the presence of the Government pleader for the State and its officials  and the counsel for the Society but at the same time directed the  prayer for interim relief to be rejected.  Feeling aggrieved therewith  this appeal by special leave has been filed.  

       Ordinarily, this Court in its exercise of jurisdiction  under Article  136 of the Constitution does not interfere with the orders of interim  nature passed by the High Court or Tribunals.  This is a rule of  discretion developed by experience, inasmuch as indulgence being  shown by this Court at an interim stage of the proceedings pending  before a competent Court or Tribunal results in duplication of  proceedings; while the main matter is yet to be heard by the Court or  Tribunal seized of the hearing and competent to do so, valuable time  and energy of this Court are consumed in adjudicating upon a  controversy the life of which will be co-terminus with the life of the  main matter itself which is not before it and there is duplication of  pleadings and documents which of necessity shall have to be placed on  the record of this Court as well.  However, this rule of discretion  followed in practice is by way of just self-imposed discipline.

       The Courts and Tribunals seized of the proceedings within their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

jurisdiction take a reasonable time in disposing of the same.  This is on  account of fair procedure requirement which involves delay intervening  between the previous and the next procedural steps leading towards  preparation of case for hearing.  Then, the Courts are also over  burdened and their hands are full.  As the conclusion of hearing on  merits is likely to take some time, the parties press for interim relief  being granted in the interregnum. An order of interim relief may or  may not be a reasoned one but the factors of prima facie case,  irreparable injury and balance of convenience do work at the back of  the mind of the one who passes an order of interim nature.  Ordinarily,  the Court is inclined to maintain status quo as obtaining on the date of  the commencement of the proceedings.  However, there are a few  cases which call for the Court’s leaning not in favour of maintaining the  status quo and still lesser in percentage are the cases when an order  tantamounting to a mandamus is required to be issued even at an  interim stage.  There are matters of significance and of moment posing  themselves as moment of truth.  Such cases do cause dilemma and  put the wits of any Judge to test.

       Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would  tantamount to granting the final relief itself.  And then there may be  converse cases where withholding of an interim relief would  tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself; for, by the time the  main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be  allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his  favour.  In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case  ___ of a standard much higher than just prima facie case, the  considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury  forcefully tilting the balance of case totally in favour of the applicant  may persuade the Court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to  granting the final relief itself.  Of course, such would be rare and  exceptional cases.  The Court would grant such an interim relief only if  satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the Court  and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being  perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the Court would  not be able to vindicate the cause of justice.  Obviously such would be  rare cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury  complained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme  hardship.  The conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen and  the Court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent.  

       The present one is a case where we are fully satisfied that a  foolproof case for the grant of interim relief was made out in favour of  the petitioner in the High Court on the basis of the material available  before the Court.  There was only one nomination filed which was  found to be in order and was not withdrawn.  The time appointed for  filing nominations, scrutiny and withdrawal was over.  There was no  contest.  Nothing had remained to be done at the meeting of the  Committee which was to be convened only for the purpose of declaring  the result.  Nothing was to be put to vote.  Holding of a meeting was  only for the purpose of performing the formality of declaring the  appellant as elected.  In fact the election programme, as notified, itself  contemplated the meeting at 1400 hours for voting and counting ’if felt  necessary’.  The provision as to quorum lost all its significance. It did  not make any difference whether there were eight directors to hear  the declaration of result or just four or even none.  May be the  directors having learnt of there being a single valid nomination and  that too not withdrawn, also knew that the result of the election was a  fait accompli, and therefore, did not want to take the trouble of even  coming to the venue of the meeting.  Unless something was brought to  the notice of the Court either by way of material in the shape of  documents or affidavits or even by way of a plea raised before the  Court which could come in the way of the relief being granted to the  writ petitioner, in the case of such a nature, the interim relief ought to  have been granted.  The writ petitioner-appellant is right in submitting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

that the election was for a period of one year out of which a little less  than half of the time has already elapsed and in the absence of interim  relief being granted to him there is nothing which would survive for  being given to him by way of relief at the end of the final hearing.  

       It is pertinent to note that in spite of the respondents having  been noticed by this Court none has made appearance excepting the  State of Maharashtra and the State too has not chosen to file any  counter affidavit.

       The appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated 5.1.2004, in  so far as it rejects the prayer for the grant of interim relief, is set  aside.  The prayer for the grant of interim relief as made by the writ  petitioner/appellant is allowed.  The respondents are directed to  announce the result of election in accordance with the election  programme dated 11.12.2003 post haste and act accordingly.  

       Before parting we make it clear that whatever has been stated  hereinabove is for the purpose of disposing of the prayer for the grant  of ad-interim relief and that has been done on the basis of material  available on record at this stage.  As a very short question of law  arises for decision in the case, the High Court would do well to take up  the main matter itself for hearing at an early date and decide the same  finally.  The High Court while deciding the writ petition on merits would  obviously do so on the basis of pleadings and documents produced and  submissions made before it; the High Court need not feel inhibited by  anything said in this order.  No order as to the costs.