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