http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: K.SHANTHARAJ & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.L. NAGARAJ & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/05/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      There appeals  by special leave arise from the judgment of the  Division Bench  of the Karnataka High Court, made on March 17, 1997 in Writ Appeal Nos.1464-66/94.      The indisputable  facts  are  that  the  committee  was superseded by  the Administrator  who has  been appointed by the Government to manage the affairs of the Society, pending further action. During the period of the administration, the Administrator had enrolled new members and given schedule of programme for conducting the elections to the Committee. The respondents challenged  the  order  of  appointment  of  the Administrator. The learned single Judge, while setting aside the order of appointment, held that the Administrator has no power to  enroll new members; but he could conduct elections to the  Committee of  the Society as per the schedule of the programme. That  was confirmed  by the  Division Bench.  The material provisions in that behalf are contained in Sections 30 and 30-A of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, the ‘Act’). They read as under:      "30. Supersession of Committee:      (1)  If,  in  the  opinion  of  the      Registrar -      (a) the committee of a co-operative      society persistently  makes default      or is  negligent in the performance      of the duties imposed on it by this      Act or the rules or the bye-laws or      commits   any    Act    which    is      prejudicial to  the interest of the      society  or   its  members   or  is      otherwise not functioning properly;      or      (b) a  co-operative society  is not      functioning in  accordance with the      provisions of  this Act,  the rules      or  bye-laws   or  any   order   or      direction  issued   by  the   State      Government or  the  Registrar,  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    Registrar  may,  after  giving  the      committee an  opportunity to  state      its objections,  if any,  order  in      writing remove  the said committee,      and  appoint  an  administrator  to      manage the  affairs of  the society      for such  period, not exceeding one      year, as  may be  specified by  the      Registrar.      (2) The  administrator so appointed      shall subject to the control of the      Registrar and  such instructions as      he may  give  from  time  to  time,      exercise all  or any of any officer      of  the  co-operative  society  and      take such action as he may consider      necessary in  the interest  of  the      society.      (3) The administrator shall, before      the expiry  of his  term of  office      arrange for  the constitution  of a      new  committee  after  holding  the      election in  accordance  with  this      Act, the  rules and the bye laws of      the co-operative society;      Provided that  in such  an election      on member  of the Committee removed      under   sub-section    (1)   shall,      notwithstanding anything  contained      in this  Act, the rules or the bye-      laws, be eligible for being elected      as a member of the committee, for a      period of  four years from the date      of supersession  of  the  committee      under the said sub-section.      Provided that  in such  an election      no member  of the Committee elected      in accordance with this sub-section      is also  superseded within a period      of one  year from  the date  of its      election,  such   supersession  may      extend to  a period  not  exceeding      three years.      30A Appointment of Special officer:      (1) Where the State Government on a      report made  to it by the Registrar      or otherwise, is satisfied that any      cooperative    society    is    not      functioning in  accordance with the      provisions of this Act or the rules      made thereunder  or its bye-laws or      any   order,   direction   circular      issued by  the State  Government or      the     Registrar      it      may,      notwithstanding  anything  in  this      Act, by  order, appoint  a  Special      Officer   for   such   co-operative      society   for   such   period   not      exceeding two years:      Provided that  the State Government      may, if  it considers  it necessary      extend the said period of two years      by   such    further   period   not      exceeding one year.      (3) The  Special Officer subject to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    the control of the State Government      and  the  Registrar,  exercise  and      perform   all    the   powers   and      functions of  the committee  of the      co-operative society  and take  all      such actions  as may be required in      the interest  of  the  co-operative      society."      It would be clear from the language of these provisions that  the  Administrator  or  special  officer,  subject  to control of  any of  the functions of the society as per law. He should  conduct elections  as is  enjoned thereunder.  In other words,  he is  to conduct election with the members as on the  roles and by necessary implication, he is not vested with power to enrol new members of the Society.      The learned single Judge in his judgment has held thus:      The new  members  enrolled  by  the      Administrator is  without authority      of law  and in  utter disregard  to      the Bye-laws  of  the  society  and      they have  no right  to participate      in the election. Since the order of      supersession is  declared  invalid,      the election  has to  be  conducted      from the  stage it  was intercepted      from the  stage it  was intercepted      at the  earliest  opportunity.  The      members who are enrolled during the      pendency of  the writ petition hall      not participate in the election and      the Administrator  shall notify the      election  with  fresh  calender  of      events and  hold the  election with      the  members   who  were   then  in      existence when  W.P.  No.  16378/92      was filed,  The General Body or the      Board of  Directors elected  by the      General  Body  shall  consider  the      application  of   the  new  members      enrolled   by   the   Administrator      keeping in view the criteria or the      eligibility contemplated under Bye-      law 15  and dispose  of  their  law      after due consideration.      The Division  Bench after  elaborate consideration  has agreed with  the above  conclusion reached  by  the  learned single Judge and held thus:      "Accordingly, he is not entitled to      enroll new  members. But  it has to      be  noted   that  the   wording  of      Section 33(2)  of  the  Kerala  Co-      operative Societies Act is slightly      different  from   the  wording   of      Section  30  of  the  Act.  In  the      Kerala Act,  the  Administrator  of      the  functions  of  the  committee.      Moreover, as  stated  earlier,  the      difference in  the authority vested      in an  Administrator and  a Special      Officer, as  is made  in  Karnataka      Act is not considered in the Kerala      decision.  the  difference  in  the      authority     vested      in     an      Administrator and a Special officer      in  the   Karnataka  Act,  is  very

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

    significant which  is absent in the      Kerala Act.  In that  view  of  the      matter, the dictum laid down by the      Division  bench   of  Kerala   High      Court, cannot  have any application      while determining  the  comparative      authority of  an administrator  and      Special  officer   appointed  under      Section 30 and 30A of the Karnataka      Act respectively.      In view of what is stated above, we      confirm the decision of the learned      single  Judge   and  dismiss  these      appeals.  the  direction  regarding      election given by the earned single      judge shall  be carried  out by the      concerned  respondent   within  two      months from  the date of receipt of      a copy of this Judgement."      Shri Santosh  Hedge, learned  senior counsel,  contends that since the Administrator has power to conduct elections, by  necessary  implication,  he  has  power  to  update  the electoral lists  by either  enrolling  the  new  members  or substituting the  legal representatives  of the  members  in accordance with  the bye-laws;  therefore, he  has power  to enroll the  members. We  find that  there is no force in the contention. The  power of  Administration  given  under  the statute to  conduct elections  should be confined within the parameters set  under the  relevant provisions  of the  Act, Rules and  Bye-laws.   The division  Bench has  minutely and carefully gone  into all  the questions  and agreed with the learned single  judge that the Administrator has no power to enroll new  members; but  he  has  the  powers  to  organise election process  in accordance  with the  provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the society. In that view of the  matter,  we  think  that  the  High  Court  has  not committed any error of law warranting interference.      The  appeal   is  accordingly  dismissed.  However,  we confirm the direction issued by the learned single Judge for enrollment of  new members  by the  board or  the  Board  of Directors, as  the case  may be, in accordance with the bye- law No.15 and dispose them of No costs.