http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: THE GOA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PEDNE TALUKA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAKPAT SAUNSTHA LTD. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996 Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy               Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B.Pattanaik Anil B.Divan,  Sr.Adv., Ms.  Sunita Sharma  and  P.H.Parekh, Advs. with him for the appellants. A.M. Khanwilkar and Mukul Mudgal, Advs. for the Respondents                          O R D E R      The following Order of the Court was delivered:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard the counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court, Panaji Bench dated April 26, 1996  made in W.P.No.145 of 1996. It is not necessary to dilate upon  the entire  controversy that has arisen between the parties. Suffice it to state that on September 20, 1996, this Court,  after  hearing  all  the  counsel,  passed  the following as:      "It is  now  an  admitted  position      that the  appellant Bank is neither      National Co-operative  Society, nor      Statewide notified  Co-op.  Society      falling under  Section 35 of Multi-      State Co-op.  Societies Act,  1984.      In  that   perspective   the   only      procedure   for    conducting   the      election to  other Societies  is as      per Paragraph  8  of  the  Schedule      which   envisages   conducting   of      elections in  accordance  with  the      procedure prescribed therein. It is      not in  dispute  that  the  General      Body of  the  Society  resolved  to      adopt paragraphs  2  to  7  of  the      Schedule for  conducting  elections      to the  society and  resolution  to      that effect was passed and also the      Bye-laws were  amended. The area of      controversy is  whether the amended

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    Bye-law have  been approved  by the      Registrar.  The   High  Court   has      proceeded on  the premise  that the      Registrar, must  have approved  the      Bye-laws  and   on   that   premise      directed the  respondent to conduct      the election.  Unless  the  Bye-law      are approved by the Registrar, they      do    not     become     effective.      Resultantly any  election conducted      in transgression  of the  statutory      rules   would   admittedly   become      invalid.  Shri  Mukul  Mudgal,  the      learned counsel  for the Registrar,      is directed  to file  an  affidavit      whether  the   Bye-laws  have  been      approved by the Registrar, or not."      Pursuant thereto, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sambhaji Dattajirao  Desai has  filed his affidavit in which he stated that an amendment to bye-law No.36 was approved by the  Central  Registrar  of  the  Cooperative  Societies  on September 6,  1994. The  amended  bye-law  was  appended  as Annexure R-1 which would show that:      "The  Board   of  Directors   shall      consist of  13 Directors of which 3      Directors or  1/3 of  the number of      Directors whichever  is less  shall      be nominated  by the  Government or      any authority  specified by  it, in      this behalf,  if the Government has      purchased share  of the  Bank.  The      Managing Director  shall be the Ex-      Offices  member  of  the  Board  of      Directors. The other members of the      Board of Directors shall be elected      as per  the Multi State Cooperative      Societies Act  1984  and  Rules  as      prescribed  under  para  2  of  the      Schedule   to   the   Multi   State      Cooperative Societies  Rules  1985.      The Constituency  and the  Units of      the  affiliated  Societies  to  the      Bank shall be as under.      The    voters     in     respective      constituencies  and   units   shall      elect  their   own  Directors.  The      representative of service and other      Societies  affiliated   to  contest      election  through   the  respective      units and constituency."      It is  not in  dispute that  it was further amended and the bye-law,  as amended  for the second time, was certified by the Registrar on February 8, 1996 which reads as under:-      "In pursuance  of the provisions of      the     Multi-State     Cooperative      Societies Act, 1984, the amendments      to bye-law  No.  1(a)  of  the  Goa      State   Cooperative    Bank   Ltd.,      Panaji, Goa  is  hereby  registered      under Section  9 of the Multi-State      Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (51      of 1984).      Given under  my hand  and seal this      the 8th day of February, 1996."      Shri  Anil   B.  Divan,   the  learned  senior  counsel

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

appearing for  the appellant,  has brought to our notice the procedure applicable  to the  conduct of  elections  to  the Societies as  envisaged in  Rule 104 and Schedule II, of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies (Registration, Membership, Direction and  Amendment, Settlement of disputes, Appeal and Revision), 1985  (for short,  "the Rule"). He contended that election to  the society  should be  conducted as per rules. Shri  Khanwilkar,   learned  counsel   appearing   for   the respondent, contended  that after  the amendment of the bye- laws a  controversy has  arisen as  to what  is the relevant rule with reference to which election is to be conducted. We desist to  he into  the controversy  for the reason that the election to  the Society  has yet  to be  conducted.  It  is axiomatic that  the election requires to be conducted by the 7th respondent in accordance with the relevant rules and the bye-laws of  the Societies  applicable as on the date of the election. Therefore, it is for the 7th respondent to conduct the elections  in accordance  with  the  relevant  rules  as applicable to  the Society  in tune with the bye-laws of the appellant-Society as applicable to the society.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  judgment  and order of  the High  Court stands  set aside.  The  operative portion of the judgment also stands set aside. The Registrar is directed  to conduct the elections in accordance with the relevant rules  applicable to the Society, Bank and bye-laws of the  Society, the  Act as also the Rules applicable as on the date of conducting of the elections. No costs.