Holding

The Supreme Court held that interim relief should have been granted and set aside the High Court’s order refusing it, directing the election result to be announced as per the original programme.

Summary

The appellant, a director of a Maharashtra cooperative society, was the sole nominee for the post of Chairman. The returning officer refused to declare him elected because the quorum for the special meeting was not met, despite the nomination being in order and unwithdrawn. The appellant filed a writ petition seeking a declaration of his election and an ad‑interim writ; the High Court rejected the interim relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the lack of quorum was irrelevant where there was only one valid nomination and no contest, and that a strong prima facie case warranted interim relief. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order, directed the respondents to announce the election result as per the original programme, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a quorum is required to declare the result of an election when there is a single unwithdrawn nomination.
Whether the returning officer’s stay of the special meeting was valid under the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act and the society’s bye‑laws.
Whether interim relief should be granted in the circumstances, considering prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience.
Whether the Supreme Court may intervene under Article 136 to set aside a High Court order refusing interim relief.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 136
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960s. 144Y, s. 73G

Subjects

cooperative societyelection of chairmaninterim reliefquorumArticle 136Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Actwrit petitionmandamus

Judgment

I
,""l

A DEORAJ
V.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

APRIL 6, 2004

B [R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.]

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960-Sections 73G and /44Y-
Election of Chairman of the Board-Notification of election programme-
C Single nomination paper filed by one of the directors of the Board, on scrutiny
nomination filed found in order and not withdrawn-Non declaration of result
by returning officer on the date fixed on the ground of incomplete quorum at
the Special meeting, staying the Meeting despite the candidate insisting
declaration of result-Rejection of interim relief by High Court-On appeal
held: Case made out for grant of interim relief-Term of the Chairman being
D one year, of which and six months having expired already, Court ought to
have granted interim relief Order of High Court set aside-Constitution of
India, 1950-Artic/e 136.

The appellant was one of the 8 Directors to look after th·e
management and working of a Co-operative Society. The term of the
E Board of Directors is five years but the Chairman is elected every year
for a term of one year each. As the term of the Chairman previously
elected was coming to an end, the election of new Chairman was to be
held. Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer notified the election programme.
Appellant, one of the Directors of the Board filed his nomination paper.
F No other nomination was filed. On scrutiny of the nomination filed by the
appellant, it was found to be in order and also there was no withdrawal
of the nomination. On the date fixed for the declaration of the result of
the election the Returning Officer did not declare the result as the quorum
of the special meeting was incomplete and stayed the special meeting even
though the appellant insisted on his being declared as the duly elected
G Chairman as he was the only one nominated.
Appellant filed writ petition seeking quashing of the order of the
Returning Officer and that he be declared the duly elected Chairman and
also sought for an ad-interim writ to the same effect. In the meantime,

H 920
DEORA.I r. STA TE 921
the Collector announced fresh election programme. The whole process of A
election was directed to be commenced from the beginning. Appellant filed
an application for amendment seeking setting aside of the election
programme declared and an ad-interim writ seeking suspension of the
election proposed to be held afresh. Division Bench of High Court rejected
the prayer for interim relief. Hence the present appca!.
B
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, a foolproof case for the grant of
interim relief was made out in favour of the petitioner in the High Court
on the basis of the material available before the Court. There was only
one nomination filed which was found to be in order and was not c
withdrawn. There was no contest. Nothing had remained to be done at
the meeting of the Committee which was to be convened only for the
purpose of declaring the result. Nothing was to be put to vote. Holding of
a meeting was only for the purpose or performing the formality of
declaring the appellant as elected. In fact the election programme, as D
notified, itself contemplated the meeting for voting and counting if felt
necessary. The provision as to quorum lost all its significance. May be the
,.. directors havir.g learnt of there being a single valid nomination and that
too not withdrawn, also knew that the result of the election was a fait
accompli, therefore, did not want to take the trouble of even coming to
the venue of the meeting. 1926-D-GI E
1.2. Unless something was brought to the notice of the Court either
by way of material in the shape of documents or affidavits or even by way
of a plea raised before the Court which could come in the way of the relief
being granted to the writ petitioner, in the .case of such a nature, the F
interim relief ought to have been granted. The writ petitioner-appellant
is right in submitting that the election was for a period of one year out of
which a little less than half of the time has already elapsed and in the
absence of interim relief being granted to him there is nothing which would
survive for being granted given to him by way of relief at the end of the
final hearing. Therefore, the order of High Court rejecting the prayer of G
interim relief is set aside. The respondents are directed to announce the
result of the election in accordance with the initial election programme
dated l l.l2.2003 post haste and act accordingly. 1926-G-H; 927-A, CJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2084 of
2004. H
J.
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 5.1.2004 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 5834 of 2003.

Venkateswara Rao Anumolu and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Appellant.

Manish Kumar Saran, Mukesh K. Giri and Ravindra Kumar Adsure for
B the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted.

C Tuljabhavani Ziila Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Va Prakriya Sangh
Maryadit, Osmanabad (hereinafter 'the Sangh', for short) is a cooperative
society falling in one of the categories included in Section 73G of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act, 1960 (hereinafter, 'the Act' for short).
Section 144Y of the Act makes special provision for election of officers of
such societies. It reads as under:-"
D
144Y. Special provision for election of officers of specified societies

( 1) This section shall apply only to election of officers by members
of committees of societies belonging to the categories specified in
section 73-G.
E (2) After the election of the members of the committee and, where
necessary, co-option or appointment, as the case may be, of members
to the reserved seats under section 73-B or whenever such election is
due, the election of the officer or officers of any such society shall
be held as provided in its bye-laws but any meeting of the committee
F for this purpose shall be presided over by the Collector or an officer
nominated by him in this behalf."

Here itself it would be relevant to reproduce the relevant bye-laws of
the society as under:-

G "Bye-law No.18.3: Every year after annual General Body Meeting.
in first meeting of Board of Directors, as per
provisions of law, Chairman shall be elected
for a period of one year. Till the new Chairman
is elected, previous Chairman should continue
to hold the post.
H
-
DEORAJ v. STATE [LAHOTI. J.] 923

Bye-law No.18.11: Out of total number of elected Directors, if 50 A
percent plus one Directors (including
nominated directors) are present for meeting
then, corum (sic., quorum) for the meeting shall
be complete."
B
The Sangh has a Board of Directors consisting of eight Directors to
look after the management and working of the Sangh. The present Board of
Directors which includes the appellant also as a Director was elected on
27.3.2000. The term of the Board is five years but the Chairman is elected
every year for a term of one year each. The previous three Chairmen were
elected respectively in the meetings held on 12.10.2000, 12.11.2001, 9.12.2002. C
As the term of the Chainnan previously elected on 9.12.2002 was coming to
an end, the election of new Chairman, was notified to be held on 14.11.2003
so as to elect the Chairman for the next term of one year. The Collector,
Osmanabad was to preside over the meeting called for the purpose. Collector,
Osmanabad by his order dated 29.11.2003 appointed Tehsildar, Osmanabad D
as the Returning Officer. The election programme was notified by Tehsildar-
cum-Returning Officer on 3.12.2003 as under:-

"Election Programme for the post of Chairman schedule on 11.12.2003
Date Time Stages of Election

11.12.2003 11.00 to Distribution of nomination papers E
12.00 a.m. & acceptance of nomination papers

11.12.2003 12.00 noon Scrutiny of nomination papers
to 12.15 p.m.

11.12.2003 12.30 p.m. to Withdrawal of nomination papers F
13.00 p.m.

11.12.2003 14.00 noon If felt necessan:, then voting,
counting & declaration of result of
election.
G

- ~
(underlining by us)

Simultaneously with the notification of the election programme, the
Managing Director of the Sangh issued notices to all the Directors informing
them of the meeting schedulea to be held at 2 p.m. on 11.12.2003. The
election programme was also communicated to all the Directors. H
-
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A On 11.12.2003, at 11.48 a.m. the appellant filed his nomination paper .... •
the receipt whereof was issued by the Returning Officer. There was no other
nomination filed. On scrutiny the nomination filed by the appellant was found
to be in order. There was no withdrawal.

At 2 p.m. only four Directors, including the appellant, out of the total
B eight Directors of the Sangh were present. The Returning Officer awaited for
the arrival of other Directors for ten min~tes. At I 0 minutes past 2 p.m., the
Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer drew up the proceedings of special meeting
recording all the facts relating to the notification of election, the filing of
single nomination paper, its scrutiny and no withdrawal and the fact that only
C four Directors had turned up for the meeting. In the concluding paragraphs
the Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer recorded as under:-

"The Board of Directors of the said society consist of total 8 directors.
The coram for special meeting is half + I Director. But 4 directors
are present for the meeting, the coram for the meeting is not completed.
D Therefore, the said special meeting is stayed. It is declared so.

The Returning Officer has declared that the said special meeting
is being stayed, will be co•nmunicated to the Collector, Osmanabad,
thereafter, further proceedings will be done as per his orders. After
giving vote of thank to the present Directors, the meeting is declared
E to be over.

Date : 11.12.2003"

It appears that the appellant insisted on his being declared as the duly
elected Chairman in view of he only being the duly nominated candidate for
F the office of Chairman. But he received no response. On 17.12.2003, he filed
a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad seeking
quashing of the order dated 11.12.2003 passed by the Tehsildar-cum-Returning
Officer and a command to complete the election programme as scheduled by
resuming the same from the stage at which it had stopped. In substance the
appellant sought for his being declared the duly elected Chairman of the
G Sangh. The appellant also sought for an ad-interim writ to the same effect.
The petition remained pending alongwith the prayer for interim relief.
In the meantime, on 26.12.2003, the Collector announced fresh election
programme convening a meeting to be held on 5.1.2004. The whole process
of election was directed to be commenced from the beginning. The appellant
H moved an application for amendment in the writ petition seeking setting
DEORA.I v. STATE (LAHOTI..I.) 925
'.>
aside of the election programme declared on 26.12.2003 and an ad-interim A
writ seeking suspension or the election proposed to be held afresh. By the
impugned order dated 5.1.2004, the Division Bench of the High Court directed
rule to issue in the presence of the Government pleader for the State and its
officials and the counsel for the Society but at the same time directed the
prayer for interim relief to be rejected. Feeling aggrieved therewith this appeal B
by special leave has been filed.

Ordinarily, this Court in its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136
~ of the Constitution does not interfere with the orders of interim nature passed
by the High Court or Tribunals. This is a rule of discretion developed by
experience, inasmuch as indulgence being shown by this Court at an interim
stage of the proceedings pending before a competent Court or Tribunal results
c
in duplication of proceedings; while the main matter is yet to be heard by the
Court or Tribunal seized of the hearing and competent to do so, valuable time
and energy of this Court are consumed in adjudicating upon a controversy
the life of which will be co-terminus with the life of the main matter itself
which is not before it and there is duplication of pleadings and documents D
which of necessity shall have to be placed on the record of this Court as well.
However, this rule of discretion followed in practice is by way of just self-
imposed discipline.

The Courts and Tribunals seized of the proceedings within their
jurisdiction take a reasonable time in disposing of the same. This is on account E
of fair procedure requirement which involves delay intervening between the
previous and the next procedural steps leading towards preparation of case
for hearing' Then, the Courts are also over burdened and their hands are full.
As the conclusion of hearing on merits is likely to take some time, the parties
press for interim relief being granted in the interregnum. An order of interim F
relief may or may not be a reasoned one but the factors of prima facie case,
irreparable injury and balance of convenience do work at the back of the
mind of the one who passes an order of interim nature. Ordinarily, the Court
is inclined to maintain status quo as obtaining on the date of the
commencement of the proceedings. However, there are a few cases which
call for the Court's leaning not in favour of maintaining the status quo and G
still lesser in percentage are the cases when an order tantamounting to a
' ~ mandamus is required to be issued even at an interim stage. There are matters
of significance and of moment posing themselves as moment of truth. Such
cases do cause dilemma and put the wits of any Judge to test.
H
926 SUl'REME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would
tantamount to granting the final relief itself. And then there may be converse
cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal
of main petition itself; for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing
there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though
B all the findings may be in his favour. In such cases the availability of a very
strong prima facie case - of a standard much higher than just prima facie
case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury
forcefully tilting the balance of case totally in favour of the applicant may
persuade the Court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting
the final relief itself. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases.
C The Court would grant such an interim reiief only if satisfied that withholding
of it would prick the conscience of the Court and do violence to the sense
of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and
at the end the Court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice.
Obviously such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling
D circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and
would cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties shall also have to
be seen and the Court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent.

The present one is a case where we are fully satisfied that a foolproof
case for the grant of interim relief was made out in favour of the petitioner
E in the High Court on the basis of the material available before the Court.
There was only one nomination filed which was found to be in order and was
not withdrawn. The time appointed for filing nominations, scrutiny and
withdrawal was over. There was no contest. Nothing had remained to be
done at the meeting of the Committee which was to be convened only for the
purpose of declaring the result. Nothing was to be put to vote. Holding of a
F meeting was only for the purpose of performing the formality of declaring
the appellant as elected. Jn fact the election programme, as notified, itself
contemplated the meeting at 1400 hours for voting and counting 'if felt
necessary'. The provision as to quorum lost all its significance. It did not
make any difference·whether there were eight directors to hear the declaration
G of result or just four or even none. May be the directors having learnt of there
being a single valid. nomination and that too not withdrawn, also knew that
the result of the election was a fait accompli, and therefore, did not want to
take the trouble of even coming to the venue of the meeting. Unless something
was brought to the notice of the Court either by way of material in the shape
of documents or affidavits or even by way of a plea raised before the Court
H which could come in the way of the relief being granted to the writ petitioner,
I DEORAJ v. STATE [LAHOTl..1.] 927
in the case of such a nature, the interim relief ought to have been granted. A
The writ petitioner-appellant is right in submitting that the election was for
a period of one year out of which a Iittle less than half of the time has already
elapsed and in the absence of interim relief being granted to him there is
nothing which would survive for being given to him by way of relief at the
end of the final hearing.
B
It is pertinent to note that i~ spite of the respondents having been
noticed by this Court none has made appearance excepting the State of
Maharashtra and the State too has not chosen to file any counter affidavit.

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.1.2004, in so far as C
it rejects the prayer for the grant of interim relief, is set aside. The prayer for
the grant of interim relief as made by the writ petitioner/appellant is allowed.
The respondents are directed to announce the result of election in accordance
with the election programme dated 11.12.2003 post haste and act accordingly.

Before parting we make it clear that whatever has been stated D
hereinabove is for the purpose of disposing of the prayer for the grant of ad-
interim relief and that has been done on the basis of material available on
record at this stage. As a very short question of law arises for decision in the
case, the High Court would do well to take up the main matter itself for
hearing at an early date and decide the same finally. The High Court while
deciding the writ petition on merits would obviously do so on the basis of E
pleadings and documents produced and submissions made before it; the High
Court need not feel inhibited by anything said in this order. No order as to
the costs:

N.J. Appeal allowed.