AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA S.D.V. AND P. SANGH LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

   AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA S.D.V. AND P. SANGH LTD. AND ANR.                            A
                                      v.
                 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                           NOVEMBER 5, 2003

  [V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND,DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]                      B


      Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committee
Rules, 1971:

      R. 81-Election-Amendment of bye-laws categorizing specified                C
Cooperative Societies into different classes-Preparation of voters list
accordingly-Amendment held illegal-Writ petition for inclusion in electoral
roll of those who, by virtue of amendment, were not so included-Direction
by High Court to include their names in electoral roll-Plea that preparation
of electoral roll being an intermediary stage of the process of election, High   D
Court in giving the direction committed error ofjurisdiction-Held, r.81 shows
that validity of the bye-laws cannot be gone into by the Tribunal-Respondents
had no other remedy except to file an appeal before the appellate authority-
Amendment of bye-laws having been held by co-operative authorities, not in
conformity with the law, the electoral roll prepared on the basis of such
amendment would fall down-Such a finding on jurisdictional fact has been         E
rightly held by High Court as not perverse warranting interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India-Constitution of India-Article 227.

      Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
(2001 J 8 sec 509, referred to.
                                                                                 F
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2553-2554
of 2002.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.6.2001 of the Bombay High
Court Bench at Aurangabad in W.P. No. 1319 and 618 of 1999.
                                                                                 G
     A.V. Savant, Arun Pednekar and V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellants.

      Uday U. Lalit, Sanjay V. Kharde, Naresh Kumar and Mukesh K. Giri
for the Respondents.

                                    265                                          H
    266                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         The following Order of the Court was delivered by
         The appellant herein is a specified society. On August .31, 1997, the
  ieneral body meeting was held wherein it has proposed to amend the bye-
  laws. It was resolved in the said general body meeting that the milk supply
  societies to the extent of 200 litres per day in 300 days for last three years
B will be categorized as class 'A' so.cieties. It was also resolved that the milk
  supplying societies more that 50 litres of milk daily in 300 days will be
  categorized as Class 'B' societies for last three years and the societies supplying
  less th:m 50 litres of milk daily for 300 days for last three years will be
  categorized as Class 'C' grade societies and which would be called as nominal
C members. On October 24, 1997, the Divisional Deputy Registrar Cooperative
   Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik accorded his approval to the amendment
  of the aforesaid bye-laws. It is not disputed that consequent upon the
  amendment in the bye-laws the voters' list was prepared for holding election
   for constituting the Managing Committee of the society. In the meanwhile
   the respondents herein filed an appeal against the amendment of bye-laws to
D the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies (Dairy), Worli, Mumbai who allowed
   the appeal, holding the amendment of bye-laws to be illegal and inasmuch as
   the same was issued without giving notice to the members. A revision petition
   was filed against the appellate order which was also dismissed. Subsequently,
   the appellant took the matter to the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High
E Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia.
   The Writ Petition has also been dismissed.

          It is relevant to mention here that respondents also filed a petition
    under Article 226 for direction to the Returning Officer for inclusion of their
    names in the electoral roll in view of the fact that the amendment in the bye-
F   laws was struck down by the appellate authority. Both the writ petitions filed
    by the appellant and respondents were heard together. The appeal filed by the
    appellant was dismissed whereas the appeal preferred by the respondents
    herein was allowed and a direction was issued to the authority for inclusion
    of their names in the electoral roll. It is against the said judgment of the High
    Court the appellant is before us.
G
         Learned counsel urged that the High Court ought not to have issued a
  direction for inclusion of the name of the respondents in electoral roll in view
  of the fact that the preparation of the electoral roll is an intermediary stage
  of the process of the election and as such the High Court committed an error
H of the jurisdiction. Learned counsel relied upon in support of the decision of
         AHMEDNAGARZILLAS.D.V. AND P. SANGH LTD. v. STATE                    267

this Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami v. State of Maharashtra               A
and Ors., [2001] 8 SCC 509. In the said case it was held that the preparation
of the voter list is intennediary stage in the process of election of the Managing
Committee and if there was breach of the Rule in the preparation of the voter
list, it can be called in question in an election petition after the election is
over and the High Court is not required to interfere in the matter at this stage.    B
      In Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (supra) this Court made the
aforementioned observa.tions keeping in view the fact therein the voters' list
was prepared in terms of the extant rules but certain irregularities were
committed therein, but where voters list has been irregularities were committed
therein, but where voters list has been prepared, on the basis of non-existent       C
rules the same would be illegal.

      In the present case, what we find is that illegal amendment of the bye-
laws was challenged on the basis of which the lectoral roll prepared. Under
Section 165 of the Act, the State Government has framed Rules under the
provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and the Maharashtra              D
Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971. Rule 81
provides for ground for declaring the elections to be void. A perusal of Rule
81 shows that the validity of the bye-law cannot be gone into by the Tribunal.
In view of the fact that the respondents had no other remedy except to file
an appeal before the appellate authority and once it is held that the amendment
of the bye-laws are not in confirmity with the law and the electoral roll            E
prepared on the basis would fell down.

       The question as to whether the High Court ought to have entertained
the writ petition filed by the Respondent or uot takes a back seat in the
 instant case as it was for the appellants herein to show that the amendments        F
in the bye-laws have been carried out in accordance with law. Both the
appellate authority as also the revisional authority have pointed out that
conditions precedent for amending the by-laws were not been complied with.
Such a finding on jurisdictional fact has been held by the High Court as not
' per verse' warranting interference under Articles 227 of the Constitution of
India. Before us also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant       G
has failed to show as to why this Court should take a different view. We,
therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed
accordingly.

      We, however, direct the Collector, Ahmednagar, forthwith to conduct
                                                                                     H
    268                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A fresh election of the Board of Directors to the appellant Society and complete
    the same as expeditiously as possible but not later than by four months from
    today on the basis of unamended bye-laws.

          No costs.

B R.P.                                                       Appeals dismissed.