Dudhganga Vikas Sewa Santha Maryadit vs Distt. Collector-Kolhapur And Ors

The facts not in dispute are that the appellant-society is a primary society. It contributed to the capital of a federsal society known as "Kolhapur District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd."-respondent No.2 herein on 30.12.2002. It is also not disputed before us that it became a member of the federal society with effect from that very date. Election of the office bearers of the federal society was due to be held in April, 2006 and a question arose as to whether the appellant society was eligible to be a voter. The controversy arose because the name of the appellant society was not included in the provisional list of voters. The matter came for decision before the District Collector who rejected the contention of the appellant society and held that it was not eligible to vote. Aggrieved by the order of the District Collector, the appellant society filed the instant writ petition before the High Court which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order.

Having regard to the plain word used in Section 27(3) of the Act, the appellant society having invested its fund in the shares of Kolhapur District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. respondent No. 2 herein on 30.12.2002, it became eligible to vote in the affairs of the federal society after 30.12.2005. We are informed that the date of investment by the appellant society and its enrollment as a member of the federal society is the same, namely, 30.12.2002. Ex facie, therefore, in terms of Section 27(3) of the Act, in April, 2006 when the election was due to be held, the appellant society was entitled to appoint one of its members to vote on its behalf in the affairs of the federal society-respondent No.2, having completed the period of 3 years from the date of its investment in shares of the respondent No. 2 society on 30.12.2005.

Rule 4 of the Rules provides for the preparation of the provisional list of voters. We may observe that while Section 27 of the Act lays down the eligibility condition of a new member of a federal society to vote in the affairs of a federal society, Rule 4 of the Rules only relates to preparation of a provisional voters list. The provisional list is required to be prepared by every specified cooperative society for the year in which general election is due to be held. According to Rule 4 persons who have completed a minimum period of 2 years as member from the date of their enrollment before 30th June of the year immediately preceding the year in which such election is due, shall be included in the said provisional list. The question is whether for inclusion in the provisional list of voters the appellant society fulfilled the conditions laid down therein, namely, that it had completed minimum period of 2 years as a member of such society as on 30.6.2005, since the election was scheduled to be held in Apirl, 2006. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant society was enrolled as a member on 30.12.2002, the date on which it invested its fund in the capital of the respondent No. 2 federal society. We, therefore, find no difficulty in holding that in terms of Rules 4 of the Rules, which relates to preparation of the provisional voters list, the name of the appellant society had to be included in the provisional list. So viewed, under Section 27 of the Act the appellant society was eligible to vote in the elections to be held in April, 2006, and was also eligible to be included in the provisional list of voters to be prepared in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules. That being the legal and factual position, we find no reason to reject the claim of the appellant society to cast its vote in the election scheduled to be held in April, 2006.

We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court made on 6.2.2006, election was held and the appellant society and other similarly situated societies were permitted to vote, but their votes were kept in a separate sealed cover and were not to be counted until further orders. By subsequent order dated 31.3.2006, we also stayed the counting of votes and declaration of the result, until further orders.

In view of the fact that we have allowed the appeals today, we direct that the votes cast by the appellant society other similarly situated societies shall be counted and the result of the election declared.

No order as to the costs.