Holding

Nominees of financial institutions and co‑opted technical directors are entitled to sit and vote in a special meeting convened under Section 73‑ID, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The elected directors of Sanjay Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. requisitioned a special meeting of the Board to consider a no‑confidence motion against the Chairman. The Registrar issued notice of the meeting only to the elected directors, omitting the nominees of financial institutions and the co‑opted technical director. The petitioners challenged this omission, arguing that the nominees were not entitled to sit and vote under Section 73‑ID of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The High Court held that the nominees were entitled to notice and participation, and directed fresh notices. On appeal, a majority of the Supreme Court affirmed that the statutory right to sit and vote in such meetings extends to the nominees, rejecting the petitioners' contention and dismissing the appeal. Consequently, the nominees must be served notice and may vote in the special meeting.

Issues considered

Whether nominees of financial institutions and co‑opted technical directors are included within the expression ‘members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the committee’ under Section 73‑ID of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960s. 27(9), s. 73, s. 73-ID
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961s. Rule 57A

Subjects

cooperative societyno‑confidence motionvoting rightsnominee directorsco‑opted technical directorstatutory interpretationSection 73‑IDMaharashtra Cooperative Societies Act

Judgment

GAJANAN NARAYAN PATIL AND ORS.
v. A
DATTATRAYA WAMAN PATIL AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 20, 1990

[B.C. RAY, KULDIP SING!j AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] B

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960-Section 27 and
73JD read with Rule 57A and Bye Law of Society-Whether nominees
of financial institutions and co-opted Technical Directors are entitled to
vote and participate in special meeting.

The appellants, elected Directors of the Sanjay Sahakari Sakhar c
Karkhana Ltd., signed a requisition and sent the same to the Respon-
dent 3, Joint Director of Sugar and Joint Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Maharashtra State, requesting him to summon a special
meeting of the Committee of the karkhana to consider the proposed
motion of no-confidence against the Chairman of the Committee,
.. D
Respondent No. 1. The requisition was signed by more than I/3rd of the
total members in accordance with the provisions of Clause (2) of Sec.
73 ID of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act J960. On receipt of the
said requisition, Respondent No. 3 issued a notice dated I3.9.I989 con-
vening -a special meeting of the Committee of karkhana i.e. Board of
Directors on 25.9.1989. The said notice was issued to the elected mem-
E
bers only. No notice was sent to nominated members of the fmancial
bodies or co-opted members. Respondent No. I filed a writ petition
before the High Court and challenged the action of the Respondent No.
3 in not issuing the notice to the co-opted members and the member-
nominees of the Financial Institutions, as according to him, those mem-
bers are entitled to sit and vote at the special meeting when the commit-
F
tee considers the vote of no-confidence under Section 73 ID of the Act.
The High Court on consideration of the provisions of Section 73 ID read
with Rule 57 A and bye-law No. 29 of the Bye Laws of .the Society,
allowed the writ petition holding that jhc three members of the second
category who have gut a limited right to vote at a meeting except at a
meeting to elect Chairman or Vice-Chairman are entitled to be served
G
with notices of the special meeting and to participate in the said meeting
and as the two nominees of the Financial Institutions and the expert
co-opted members had not been served with the notice of requisition
meeting, the requisition meeting could ·not be held. The High Court
thus directed the Registrar, respo11dent No. 3, to issue fresh notices lo
the elected members as well as to the three Directors of the second H

491
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

category before holding the meeting and accordingly disposed of the
A
writ petition. The appellants thereupon moved the High Court and
obtained a certificate of fitness under Article 134(1) of the Constitution
and have filed this appeal.

The main contention of the appellants is that the nominees of the
B Financial Institutions and the co-opted members are not entitled to
notice.

Dismissing the appeal (by majority B.C. Ray and Kuldip Singh,
JJ.) this Court,

HELD: (Per B.C. Ray, J,)
c
The right to participate in the special meeting as well as to vote for
such meeting is a statutory right and it flows from the provision of the
Act, Rules and Bye-laws of the Society. It has nothing to do with the
democracy. [501E]
D
The words 'entitled to sit and vote in any meeting of the society',
refer to member to sit and vote not in every meeting but in any meeting
of the society. The only express bar as provided in Sectiion 27 is that the
members, that is, the Directors representatives of the Financial Institu-
tions as well as the expert Director (co-opted) are not competent to
E participate only in the election of members of the society. [501E-F]

The Directors have been conferred the right to participate in any
meeting including the special meeting of the Board of Directors or of the
Managing Committee of the society. [501 Gl

F The requisition meeting that has been convened cannot be held as
the representatives of the Financial Institutions in the Board of Y
Directors as well as the Expert Director (co-opted) under the relevant
provisions of Bye-law No. 29 have not been served with I.he requisition
notices of special meeting convened by the respondent No. 3 pursuant to
the said requisition notice. [502B-C]
G
(Per R.M. Sahai, ].-dissenting)

Sub-section (i) of Section 73-D provides the manner in which
Chairman or Vice-Chairman who holds such Office by virtue of his
election may cease to hold it. It also provides the method of such
H removal by two-third majority of the total members of the committee
0.N. PATIL v. D.W. PATIL [RAY, J.J 493

who, are, for the time being, entitled to sit and vote in any meeting of
the Committee. It is thus clear that the right to remove and elect A
Chairman and Vice-Chairman has been restricted to only limited class
ofinembers. [S04E-F]

Literal construction of expression 'entitled to sit and vote' if it
results in negation of democratic process or is against logic and is B
fraught with danger of removal of an elected representative by
nominees of financial institutions or government, then it has to be
· avoided. [S04H; SOSA]

Voting is sine qua non of election and under clause (i) of sub-rule
(7) of Rule S7-A, the decision to retain Chairman is arrived at by voting
and such right namely, right to vote in election meeting being non- c
existent in nominees of 'entitled to sit and vote' used in section 73 ID has
to be read as excluding such members from its ambit. [SOSE-F)

Such reading of the provision is necessary not only because it is
more logical but also that is the outcome of combined reading of sub- D
section (9) of Section 27, Section 73 ID and Bye-law 29. [SOSF)

Jamuna Prasad Mukhariya and Ors. v. Lachhi Ram and Ors.,
[19SS] l SCR 608 at 610-referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4676 E
& 4793 of 1989.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.89 of the Bombay
High Court in W.P. No. 3976 of 1989.

P.C. Jain, S.S. Ray, B.A. Mansodkar, Manoj Swamp, P.H. F
Parekh, J.H. Parekh, Sunil Dogra, A.M. Khanwilkar, V.D. Khanna
and A.S. Basme, for the appearing parties.

The following Judgments of the Court were delivered:
RAY_, J. This is an appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution G
of India against the Judgment and Order dated October 26, 1989
passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition_No. 3976 of 1989
whereby the High Court directed the Registrar of Cooperative
Societies to give fresh notice to the elected members as well as to the 3
persons namely 2 nominees of the Financial Institutions and the expert
co-opted member. H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

The matrix of the case is that the appellants who are the duly
A
elected Directors of the Sanjay Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. "'("··
hereinafter to be termed as "Karkhana" signed a requisition and sent
the same to the respondent No. 3, the Joint Director of Sugar and
Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune
requesting him to summon a special meeting of the Committee of the
B Karkhana to consider the proposed motion of no-confindence against
the Chairman of the Committee, Dattatraya Waman Patil, respondent
No. 1. This requisition was signed by more than !/3rd of the total
members of the committee in accordance with the provision of Clause
(2) of Section 73 ID of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
1960 (Maharashtra Act No. XXIV of 1961). The above requisition was
received in the office of the Joint Director of Sugar and Joint
c Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune, the
respondent No. 3.

On 6.9.1989 the respondent No. 3 issued a notice dated
September 13, 1989 convening a special meeting of the Managing
D Committee of Karkhana i.e. Board of Directors of the Karkhana on
25.9.1989. This notice was issued as contemplated by Clause (3) of
Section 73 ID of the Act. This notice was sent to all the members of the
Committee of the Karkhana who at that time were entitled to sit and
vote at any meeting of the Committee i.e. the elected members of the ·)-.
said Committee of Management. Over and above a copy of the notice
E was sent to the office of Registrar, Deputy Director of Sugar,
Aurangabab (Presiding Officer). A copy of this notice was also sent to
the office of the Managing Director of the Karkhana as by way of this
notice, the Managing Director had been directed to produce the
minute book of the Committee meeting and hand over possession
thereof to the Presiding Officer at the commencement of the special
F meeting.

On 18.9.89 the respondent No. 1 filed writ petition No. 3976 of
1989 before the High Court at Bombay challenging the requisition
notice dated 5.9.89 signed by the 10 appellants who are elected mem-
bers of the Managing Committee as well as notice dated 13.9.89 issued
(; by the respondent No. 3 mainly on the ground that under the scheme
of the Act read with the Rules and the bye laws of the Karkhana,
coopted member and nominees of the Financial lnstitutions who are l_
members of the Board of Directors of the Karkhana and are entitled to T
sit and vote at the special meeting when the Committee considers the
vote of no-confidence under Section 73 ID of the Act are required to
H be served with the said notices of requisition enabling them to partici-
G.N. PATIL v. D.W. PATIL [RAY, J.] 495

pate in the said special meeting. This writ petition was heard by the A
Division Bench of Bombay High Court on 26.10.89. On a considera-
tion of the provisions of Section 73 ID read with Rule 57 A and bye-law
No. 29 of the Bye-Laws of the Society the High Court allowed the writ
petition holding that the 3 members of the second category who have
got a limited right to vote at a meeting except at a meeting to elect
Chairman or Vice-Chairman are entitled to be served with notices of B
the special meeting and to participate in the said meeting and as the
two nominees of the Financial Institut.ions and the expert coopted
members had not been served with the notices of requisition meeting,
the requisition meeting cannot be held. Instead of quashing the notice
issued by the respondent No. 3 convening the meeting, the High.Court
directed the Registrar, the respondent No. 3 to issue fresh notices to C
the elected members as well as to the 3 Directors of the Second cate-
gory before holding the meeting and disposed of the writ petition
accordingly. The High Court however restrained the Chairman to
enter into new contracts and as well as giving any fresh commitment on
behalf of the Karkhana.
D
The appellants filed a petition under Article 133 of the Constitu-
tion of India against the Judgment and order dated October 26, 1989
passed by the High Court, Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3976 of 1989.
The High Court by Order dated 26. 10.89 granted certificate for appeal
to this Court under Article 134( I) of the Constitution of India on the
following questions: E

"Whether the nominees of the Financial Institutions and
the expert co-opted by the Committee under Bye-law 29
are included within the expression "Committee members
who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any
meeting of the Committee?" F

In order to decide the above question it is appropriate to con-
sider the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies 1
Act 1960 to be hereinafter called the 'Act' and the rules framed-there-
under as well as the relevant bye laws of the particular Cooperative
Society in question. G

The Karkhana is a Cooperative Society governed by the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Section 2(7) defines Commit-
tee as the Committee of Management or Board of Directors or other
directing body by whatever name called in which the management of
the affairs of the society is veste9 under S_ection 73 of the said Act. H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

Section 27 which deals with the voting powers of the members
A
provides in Sub-section '9' that no nominee of the Government or of
any Financial Bank on any society shall be entitled to vote at any
election of its Committee. Section 73 states that the management of
every society shall vest in a Committee, constituted in accordance with
this Act, the rules and bye-laws, which shall exercise such powers and
B perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed respectively by
this Act, Rules and the Bye· laws. Therefore, the management of every
Cooperative Society is vested in the Committee of management or for
that in the Board of Directors of the Society. Section 73 ID which is
relevant for determination of the said question is quoted below:

73-ID "(!) A President, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-
c Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or any other officer by
whatever designation called who holds office by virtue of
his election to that office shall cease to be such President,
Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary,
treasurer or any other officer as the case may be, if a motion
D of no-confidence is passed at a meeting of the committee by
two-third majority of the total number of Committee
members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote
at any meeting of the committee and the office of such
President, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Sec-
retary, treasurer or any other officer, as the case may be,
E shall thereupon be deemed to be vacant.

(~) The requisition for such special meeting shall be signed

-
by not less than one-third of the total number of members
of the committee who are for the time being entitled to sit
and vote at any meeting of the committee and shall be
F delivered to the Registrar. The requisition shall be made in
such form and in such manner as may be prescribed: Pro-
vided that, no such reg uisition for a special meeting shall
be made within a period of six months from the date on
which any of the officers referred to in sub-section (I) as
entered upon his office.
G
(3) The Registrar shall, within seven days from the date of
receipt of the requisition under sub-section (2), convene a
special meeting of the committee. The meeting shall be '>---
held on a date not later than fifteen days from the date of
issue of the notice of the meeting."
H
G.N. PATIL v. D.W. PATIL [RAY, J.l 497

Rule 57A-Motion of no·confidance against the officers of tho
A
Society-

(1) The requisition to call the special meeting of the com-
mittee of a society to consider a motion of no-confidence
against the President, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-
Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, or other officer of the B
society, by whatever designation called, who holds office
by virtue of his elections to that office, shall be made in
Form M-18. The requisition sha~l be accompanied by-

(a) the grounds of no-confidence,

(b) the text of the motion of no-confidence to be moved, c
(c) the name of the committee members who shall move
the motion of non-confidence,

(d) a list of members of the committee specifying their full O
names, and address who are, for the time being, entitled to
sit and vote at any meeting of the committee,

(e) signatures of the members of committee who are signing
the requisition duly attested by the Chief Executive Officer
of the society or Special Executive Magistrate or Executive E
Magistrate or any Gazetted Officer of the Government.

(2) The requisition referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be
delivered in person to the Registrar. Such requisition or
requisitions shall be delivered in duplicate in each case.
The Registrar on ascertaining that the requisition or F
requisitions, as the case may be, have been signed by not
less than 1/3rd members of the Committee who for the time
being are entitled to sit and vote in any meeting of the
committee of society.

(a) receive and acknowledge the requisition under his G
signature with date and time,

(b) issue notice, within 7 days from the date of receipt of
the requisition, convening the special meeting for that
purpose specifying therein place, date, time name and
designation of the officer who shall be presiding over such H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990[ I S.C.R.

meeting, to all the members of the Committee, the Presid-
A
ing Officer and the Managing Director, General Manager,
Manager, Paid Secretary, Group Secretary or such
employee of the society, to whom the Registrar has direc-
ted to produce minute book of Committee meetings of the
society. This notice of no-confidence, shall also be issued,
B to the· officer or officers against whom the motion of no-
confidence is being moved, and shall be accompanied by
the copy of the requisition along with enclosures and
agenda.

(5) The time of the meeting shall be between office hours
of the authorised officer. The meeting shall be held either
c in the office of the Registrar or in the office of the person
authorised by the Registrar to preside over the meeting.

(6) No other subject, except the motion or motions of no- ..
confidence shall be kept on the agenda.
D
(7d) The Registrar or the officer authorised to preside over
the meeting shall not allow any other person to enter the
place of meeting except the person or persons appointed to
assist him, the officer of the society who has produced the
minute book, the officer or officers against whom the
E motion of no-confidence is moved, the members of the
committee who are for the time being entitled to sit and
vote in any meeting of the committee, who are present at
the commencement of the meeting and police officer or
officers if called by him to maintain the law and order.

F BYE LAW No. 29.

Board of Directors:
A. xxxxxx

B. xxxxxx
G to
E. xxxxxx

(F) "Managing Director, and representatives in sub-clause
(d) and (e) (Coopted Technical Director) shall not be
J-1 entitled to function as Chairman and Vice-Chairman. The
G.N. PATIL v. D.W. PATIL [RAY, J.) 499

representatives referred to in above sub-clause (d) and A
technical expert coopted as per provisions ofsub-clause (e)
and Managing Director, will not be entitled to vote at" the
meeting for the election for Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
The representative of th_e State Government shall not be
entitled to vote on any subject at any meeting of the Board.
But his opinion will be recorded in the minute book. He B
will not be responsible for mismanagement and negligence
of the Board. Further no action can be taken against him
for any losses sustained to the Karkhana due to the mis-
management and the negligence of the Board."

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that Section 27 C
sub-section '9' debars the Government nominee or the nominee of any
Financing Bank on any society to vote at any election of the Commit-
tee of the Society and as such except the elected Directors other
Directors can not participate in the election of the Managing Commit-
tee of the Society and cannot vote for such election. It has been also
submitted that under section 73 ID Clause (A) in the special meeting D
convened for consideration of no-confidence motion against the
Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the society and other officers of the
society only the members who are for the time being "entitled to sit and
vote at any meeting of the Committee may participate and vote in the
said meeting. It has also been provided therein that as soon as vote of
no-confidence is passed against the Chairman of the managing com- E
mittee of the society by 2/3rd majority of the total number of commit-
tee members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote the
office of Chairman etc. shall be deemed to be vacant. Therefore, it has
been submitted that the word at any meeting of the committee shall be
deemed to refer to all the meetings of the managing committee or the
Board of Directors. The nominees of the Financial Institutions and F
also the coopted expert, coopted Technical Director having been not
entitled to function as a Chairman and Vice-Chairman and not to vote
at the meeting of the election for Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the
Board of Directors are not entitled to sit and vote in the special meet-
ing convened for the purpose of consideration of the no-confidence
motion against the Chairman of the Board of Directors. It has also G
been contended in this connection that the Chairman of the managing
committee or of the Board of Directors is elected by the elected
Directors of the managing committee. It is against the democratic
principles that the motion of no-confidence against the Chairman for
removal from his elected office are to be passed by the 2/3rd majority
of the members of the Board of Directors including the Directors who H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

are representatives of the Financial Institutions and expert nominee
A
(co-opted).

Mr. S.S. Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respon-
dent No. 1 has on the other hand joined issues and submitted that the
right to participate in the special meeting convened for consideration
B of no-confidence motion against the Chairman is a statutory right flow-
ing from the provisions of the statute. This right has been conferred
expressly by the provisions of section 73 ID read with Rule 57A Clause
2(b) read with Clause 7(D) i.e. "members of the committee who are
for the time being entitled to sit and vote in any meeting of the Com-
mittee." Though Section 27 sub-section 9 en joins that no nominee of
the Government or of financing bank or of any society shall be entitled
c to vote at any election of its committee. This merely means and
signifies that the nominee of the Government as well as of the Finan-
cial Institutions are not entitled to participate in the election meeting
of the society and from casting their votes in such meeting. Bye law 29
of the Bye Laws of the Society provides that the Board of Directors of
D the Karkhana would consist of the following members:

S. No. Particulars No. of Members.
1. Members falling under Bye- - elected producer, 11
law No. 29(A). members, )
E 2. Members falling under Bye- - elected by society 01
law No. 29(B) members
3. Members falling under Bye- - Managing Director, 01
law No. 29(C) Ex-officio.
4. Members falling under Bye-- Representative of 01
p law No. 29(D)(i) the financing agency.
5. Members falling under Bye- - Representatives of 01
law No. 29(D)(ii) Indian Finance Corporation
of India, LJC, IDBI etc.
(Not more than two)
In the present case only.
G
6. Members falling under - Representative of NIL
Bye-law No. 29(D)(iii) ICICI (One) In the
present case.
7. Members falling under Bye- - Nominee of the 01
law No. 29(D)(iv) State Government
H
G.N. PATIL v. D.W. PATIL [RAY, J.] 501

8. Members falling under Bye- - Expert nominee 01 A
law No. 29(E). (co-opted).
1:- 9. Members falling under - elected from SC/ 02
bye-law No. 29(G) ST and Weaker
r/w section 73B Section.
Total Strengt!l 19 B

It is also evident from the provisions of Bye law No. 29 that the
Representative of the State Government shall not be entitled to vote
on any subject at any meeting of the Board, but his opinion may be
recorded in the minute book. So far the representatives referred to in
Clause D(i) and (D)(ii) in Bye-law No. 29, that is, representative of the C
financing institutions as well as the expert nominee (co-opted) falling
under Bye-law 29(E) are entitled to participate in the special meeting
and also cast their votes in such meeting. This being the position, it is
against the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-Jaws of the society to
hold that the members falling under Bye-law 29(D)(i) and (ii) as well D
as .the expert nominee (co-opted) under Bye-Jaw 29(E) are not entitled
to sit and vote in the meeting of the committee convened for consi-
deration of the no-confidence motion against the Chairman, Board of
Directors or for that of the Managing Committee. This interpretation
will be wholly going against the clear meaning of the expression
namely members who are entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the E
committee. The right to participate in the special meeting as well as to
vote for such meeting is a statutory right and it flows from the provi-
sion of the Act, Rules and Bye-Jaws of the Society. It has nothing to do
with the democracy. The words "entitled to sit and vote in any meeting
of the society" refer to member to sit and vote not in every meeting but
in any meeting of the society. The only express bar as- provided in F
section 27 is that the members, that is, the Directors representatives of
the Financial Institutions as well as the Expert Director (co-opted) are
not competent to participate only in the election of members of the
society. The said Directors have been conferred the right to participate
in any meeting including the special meeting of the Board of Directors
or of the Managing Committee of the society,)! is appropriate to refer G
of Jamuna Prasad Mukhariya and Others v. Lachhi Ram and Others,
[ 1955] Vol. 1 S.C.R. 608 at 610. It has been observed:

"The right to stand as a candidate and contest the election
is not a common Jaw right. It is a special right created by
statute and can only be exen:is<od on the conditi_ons laid H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

down by the statute. The Fundamental Rights Chapter has
A
no bearing on a right like this created by statute. The
appellants .have no fundamental right to be elected Mem-
bers of Parliament. If they want that they must observe the
rt'
rules.''

B We have gone through the Judgment rendered by our Learned
Brother, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Sahai, we are however, unable to

~
concur with the views expressed by our Learned Brother and the find-
ings arrived at therein. We therefore, hold that the requisition meeting
that has been connvened cannot be held as the representatives of the
Financial Institutions in the Board of Directors as well as the Expert
Director (co-opted) under the relevant provisions of Bye-law No. 29
c have not been served with the requisition notices of special meeting
convened by the respondent No. 3 pursuant to the said requisition
notice. The impugned notice convening the special meeting is wholly
illegal and unwarranted. Furthermore, as we have found hereinbefore
that the two Directors representing the Financial Institutions as well as ~,
D the expert nominee (co-opted) are entitled to particiapate in the special
meeting of the committee and also to vote at the same meeting as
regards the no-confidence motion, the non-service of the notice of the
said meeting on the aforesaid Directors renders the said special meet-
ing illegal as there has been an infringement of the provisions of the
said Act, Rule 57A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Socitties Rules, )._,
E 1961 and Bye-Laws 29D{i) and (ii) and 29E of the Bye-Laws of the
Society. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and allow the writ petition
filed in the High Court. The appellants will pay costs quantified at
Rs.5 ,000 to the respondents.

R.M_ SAHAI, J. The short question of law that arises for consi- f!
F deration in this appeal directed against the order of Bombay High
Court, is whether the nominees of financial institutions and co-opted
Technical Directors who are not entitled under bye-law 29 of the
~·
San jay Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (hereinafter called as 'Soci-
ety') framed under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for
brevity 'Act') either to function as Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the
G Board of Directors of the Society or to vote at their election are
entitled to participate in a special meeting requisitioned for considera-
tion of motion of no-confidence under Section 73 ID of the Act.

Resolution to requisition a special meeting to consider motion of :>-
no-confidence against Chairman of the Board, signed by more than
H l/3rd members of the Board, was delivered to the Registrar as
G.N. PATIL v. D.W. PATIL [RAY, J.] 503

required by Rule 57-A along with a list of members who were entitled
A
to sit and vote. Notices on it were issued under Clause (b) of sub-rule
(2) of rule 57-A to elected members only. Validity of it and consequent
~ proceedings were challenged before the High Court, amongst others,
for being violative of rule 57-A as it required the Registrar to issue

,.
~
notices to all members bf the Board. Further nominees of financial
institutions being vitally involved in the welfare of the Society, their B
presence was essential for effective and meaningful discussion even if
they were not entitled to sit and vote .. Various other objections were
raised. But the High Court did not find merit in any except the one
relating to non-issuance of notice to nominees of financial institutions
and the expert co-opted by the Board. Reason for it was wider con-
struction of the expression who are for the time being entitled to sit
and vote at any meeting of the committee" used in section 73 ID of the
c
Act. The High Court found that even though it would have been more
logical to restrict such right to those alone who were entitled to elect
yet it widened the ambit of expression because if two meanings were
4 possible then the meaning which extended the right to vote rather than
that limited should be accepted. It also found that right to vote on a D
resolution of no-confidence being an important matter affecting the
Society, it should be extended to even nominated members who had a
right to vote at some meeting.

~ Bye-law 29 framed by the Society, gives out the Constitution of
the Board of Directors comprising of elected, ex-officio, representa- E
tives, and co-opted members. But right to be elected as Chairman or
Vice-Chairman of the Board or even voting at the meeting· of such
election has been confined to elected members by clause (F) which is
extracted below:
~

... "Managing Director, and (representatives in sub-clauses F
(d) and (e) (Co-opted Technical Director) shall not be
entitled to function as Chairman and Vice-Chairman. The
representatives referred to in above sub-clause (d) and
technical expert director coopted as per provisions of sub-
clause (e) and Managing Director, will not be entitled to
vote at the meeting for the election of Chairman and Vice- G
Chairman. The representative of the State Government
shall not be entitled to vote on any subject at any meeting
of the Board. But his opinion will be recorded in the
~: minute book. He will not be responsible for mismanage-
ment and negligence of the board. Further no action can be
taken against him for any losses sustained to the Karkhana H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

due to the mismanagement and the negligence of the
A board."

The question is how does it reflect on the right to participate in a
meeting of no-confidence against the Chairman of the Board? For this
purpose it is necessary to extract sub-section (1) of section 73 ID which
B reads as under:

"A President, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, ,
Secretary, Treasurer or any other officer by whatever
designation called who holds office by virtue of his election
to that office shall cease to be such President, Vice-Presi-
dent, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or
c any other officer, as the case may be, if a motion of no-
confidence is passed at a meeting of the committee by two~
third majority of the total number of committee members
who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any ~
meeting of the committee and the office of such President,
D Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary,
Treasurer or any other officer, as the case may be, shall
thereupon be deemed to be vacant."

This sub-section provides the manner in which a Chairman or
Vice-Chairman who holds such office by virtue of his election may
E cease to hold it. It also provides the method of such removal by two-
third majority of the total members of the committee who are, for the
time being, entitled to sit and vote in any meeting of the Committee. It
is thus clear that the right to remove and elect Chairman and Vice-
Chairman has been restricted to only limited class of members. Who
are they? '
p
Elections in a democracy have been conceived as an instrument
of selecting the best qualitatively superior and politically valuable.
Who should be entitled to reverse the selection? Those who elect or
any other numbers increased by any methodology or law adding rep-
resentatives and nominees not entitled to participate in selection. If
0 the value of elective process has to have primacy then those worthy of
choice should not be permitted to be sequeezed out by those who are
precluded from leadership or electing the leader. This basic concept
does not stand altered or modified either by any provision in the Act or
Rules. Literal construction of expression 'entitled to sit and vote' if it
results in negation of democratic process or is against logic and is
H fraught with danger. of removal of an elected representative by
G.N. PATIL v. D.W. PATIL [RAY, J.] 505

~- nominees of financial institutions or government then it has to be A
avoided.

Reverting to statutory right the scheme of the Act does not war-
rant the conclusion that such members are entitled to participate in
meeting requisitioned under section 73 ID. Sub-section (9) of Section
, ..,,,,, 27 re~ds as under: B

"No nominee of the Government or of any financing bank
on any society shall be entitled to vote at anf election of its
~ committee.''

It clearly and unequivocally debars nominees of financial institu· c
tions or Government representatives from exercising any right to vote
J, I
at any election meeting. Therefore, the provisions in the bye-law
debarring such a member from voting atelection of Chainnan or Vice-
Chairman cannot be interpreted to mean as permitting such rep-
resentatives to vote at other election meeting as that may result in
invalidating the bye-law. Even if such members have some right to D
vote in some meetings other than election meetings or they have a
right to record their opinion it does not entitle them to participate or
-~{ even served with notice of vote of confidence as nature of meeting for
considering motion of no-confidence has all the characteristics both in
content and effect of an election meeting. Voting is sine qua non of
election and under clause (i) of sub-rule (7) of Rule 57-A, the decision E
~
to retain Chairman is arrived at by voting and such right, namely, right
. ··--f to vote in election meeting being non-existent in nominees of financial
institutions or of Government the expression "entitled to sit and vote"

.- used in section 73 ID has to be read as excluding such members from
its ambit. Such reading of the provision is necessary not only because it
is more logical but also tht is the outcome of combined reading of F
sub-section (9) of section 27, section 73 ID and bye-law 29.
'
For these reasons, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
Writ Petition filed in the High Court is dismissed. But there shall be no
order as to costs.
G
..../., Y.Lal Appeal dismissed.