Supreme Court of India
RAM PYARE CHAUDHARY & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
- Citation
- 1982 INSC 17
- Decided
- 11 February 1982
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- D A DESAI
Holding
The term of elected members begins on the date the election result is declared, so the appointment of an administrator before 30 June 1982 was unlawful.
Summary
The District Co-operative Federation, Basti held a poll on 11 September 1978 to elect its Committee of Management, but an injunction prevented the declaration of results until 28 January 1980. The elected members' term, as per Rule 445(1) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, is three cooperative years including the year of election. The Deputy Registrar, relying on a High Court view that the term began on the poll date, appointed an administrator on 1 July 1981, claiming the term had expired on 30 June 1981. The petitioners challenged this order under Article 226. The Supreme Court held that the term of office commences only when the election result is declared, i.e., when members are officially elected, so the term expired on 30 June 1982. Consequently, the appointment of the administrator was illegal and the order was set aside.
Issues considered
- When does the term of office of elected members of a cooperative society commence – from the date of poll or from the date of declaration of election result?
- Whether Section 29(4)(a) and (b) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, apply when the election result is delayed.
- Whether the Deputy Registrar had authority to appoint an administrator before the expiry of the elected members' term.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965s. 29(1), s. 29(2), s. 29(4)(a), s. 29(4)(b)
Subjects
Cooperative societiesElection termDeclaration of resultAdministrator appointmentSection 29Rule 445Democratic processArticle 226Writ petition
Judgment
207
RAM PY ARE CHAUDHARY & ANR. A
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
' Pebruary II, 1982
B
[0.A. DBSAI, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ.J
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965-S. 29(2} read with r. 445(1)-Election
of membtrs-Po/I held but declaration of result withheld by injunclion-Term of
office fixed under statute-How reckoned-Power to remove elected representatives-
Construction of.
The management of a cooperative society· registered under the U.P.
c
,
Cooperative Societies Act vests in a committee constituted in accordance with
the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The term of elected
members of a committee, accordiiig to s. 29(2) read with r. 445(1) is three
'Cooperative years' including the cooperative year in which they are elected.
'Cooperative year' means the year commencing on the 1st day of July and ending
on the 30th day of June n.Xt following. Fresh members are to be elected before D
the expiry of the term of existing elected members failing which an administrator
ca.n be appointed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies to manage the
affairs of the cooperative society till the reconstitution of the committee.
In this case the term of the cooperative society in question was drawing
to a close and the poll to elect frosh members w.S held on September 11, 1978.
The result of the poll could not be declared immediately owing to an injunction E
issued by a court in a suit filed by a voter whose name bad not appeared in the
electoral roil. The result was, however, declared ultimatelY on January 28, 1980,
and appellant No. 1 was elected Chairman of the committee on January 29, 1980.
By an order dated July 1, 1981, made under s. 29(4) (b), the Deputy Registrar.
Cooperative Societies. appointed an administrator to manage the affairs of the
society on the ground that the term of members of.the Committee had expired
on June 30, 1981. The appellants challenged the validity of the order under F
Art. 226.
-· \
The High Court upheld the impugned order and dismmissed the petition on
the ground that once the poll was held and even though the result of the election
was not announed, the term would commence from the date of the poll.
The ahppellantssuhb°:'ittedbeethatdeven thdo~gh hthefipotllt~as heJJd on septem ber G .
II, 1978, t e resu1t avi.g n ec1are •Ort e rs 1me on anuary 28, 1980,
the term of three cooperative years of the elected members· wou1d expire on
June 30, 1982.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : I. (a) Election means the process of being elected and the term H
of office is of elected members. The term of office as member cannot .begin to
run unless the statu1 9f bein' a tl!eoi~r i! acquired o~ being declared electe~.
208 SUPREME COURT REPOP.TS [1982) 3 s.c.ll.
A The result of the election having been declared on January 28, 1980, the term nf
· members commenced from the cooperative year beginning on July l, 1979 and
ending with June 30, 1980 and since their term was three cooperative years
including the year of election, it would expire on June 30, 1982. The order
appointing the admin_istrator was, therefore illegal.
[213 H, 214 H, 215 A, 216 F-G)
(b) The provision of s. 29(4) (b) was not attracted as the process of election
B had begun with the holding of the poll before the expiry of the term and, once
the poll was held as a part of the programme of election, it had to progress to the
statutory end of declaration of result. [216 B-E)
2. The various stages of election were clearly demarcated in the Rules.
Mere holding of poll, which means recording of votes, without anything more
c would be inconsequential. . It is the counting of votes and the consequent
declaration of result which. would determine who has become eligible fo{ office
by the democratic process. No election process can be said to be complete
uDless the votes are recorded and counted and the result of the election declared
and publicised. [212 G-H, 213 E-G]
3. The election process is sacrosanct and members elected must be
permitted to discharge their functions as chosen representatives of the.-'electorate
D for the statutori!Y prescribed terrri and therefore the plea that the administrator
should not be disturbed as only four months would remain for the expiry of the
term cannot be countenanced. The drastic power of removing elected represen-
tatives before the eXpiry of their term must receive strict and narrow inter-
pretation. (217 A-CJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 478 of 1982
E
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 3rd August, 1981 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
Writ No. 7869 of 1981.
S.N. Singh for the .Appellants.
F
G.N. Dikshit and Shoba Dikshit for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DESAI, J. The District Co-operative Federation (Zila Sahakari
Federation), Basti ('Federation' for short) is a co-operative society
G· registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 ('Act'
for short). As provided by section 29 of the Act, the management·
of the Federation vests in a committee designated as Committee of
Management. The committee consists of I 0 elected members
and I nominated member. As the term of the Committee was
H drawing to a close, programme for election of the new committee of
management was anaounced as required by Part VI of the U.P.
Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 ('Rules' for short). Pursuant to
RAM PYARE v. u.P. STATE (Desai, J.) 209
this programme poll was held on September 11, 1978. It is not A
made clear to us when the counting of the votes commenced,.
though rule 444(1) provides that counting of the votes will take
place immediately· after the close of the poll except when postponed
in a given set of circumstances. Sub-rule (4) of rule 444 provides
that Election Officer shall announce the result of election as soon as ·
• the counting is completed indicating the number of votes secured 3
by each candidjlte. It appears that one Shri Kashi Nath whose
name did not appear in the voter's list- and who, on account of the
omission, could not contest the election filed Civil Suit No. 29.1 of
1978 in the Court of Munsif, Basti on September 9, 1978 and asked
for and obtained ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the.
defendants in foe suit from conducting the election of Board of
c
Directors (Committee of Management), President, Vice-President
and the del'egates of District Co-operative Federation, Basti and/or
announcing the result of election. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 ii• the
• suit appeared and contested the application for interim injunction .
The learned Munsif after hearing both sides confirmed the injunction D
in the following terms :
"6-C. is allowed and the defendants No. 1 to 4 are
directed not to conduct the election and not to declare the
result, if any, of Board of Directors of District Co.operative
Federation, Basti, till disposal of the suit". E
This order was made on September 21, 1978. It appears that by the
time the suit was filed and ex parte ad interim injunction obtained,
the poll was already held, but by the injunction, the defendants in
the suit were prohibited from declaring the result and accordingly
the result was not declared. It now appears that the result was F
declared on January 28, 1980, and the election of the Chairman and
the Vice-Chairman took place on January 29, 1980. Appellant
No. 1 was elected as Chairman. The term of the members of the
Committee of Management as provided by rule 445 as amended on
June 30, 1981, is three co-operative years including the year of
election. The Ragistrar of Co-operative Societies pursuant to the G
amended rule 445 issued a teleprinter message to various authorities
indicating that the term of the committee of management has
expired and administrator sho1,1ld be appointed as provided by sub-
section (4) (b) of section 29 of the Act. Pursuant to this teleprinter
message, the Deputy Registrar; Co-operative Societies, Gorakhpur H
made an order on July !, 1981, that the term of the members of the
committee of management of the Federation b~s expired on June
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982) 3 S.C.R.
A 30, 1981, and proceeded to appoint an administrator. The appel-
lants questioned the validity and legality of the order of the Deputy
Registrar in Writ Petition No. 7869 of 1981 filed in the Hi&h Court
of Judicature at Allahabad.
The High Court was of the opinion that even though under rule
445 the term of the office of the elected members of the committee
B
of management of co-operative sociely is three co-operative
years including the co-operative year of their election, once the poll
is held and even though the result of the election is not announced,
the term would commence from the date of the poll and therefore
the decision of the Deputy Registrar that the term expired on June
c 30, 1981, is correct. The High Court accordingly dismissed the
writ petition. Hence this appeal by special leave limited to one
point only, namely, the commencement and completion of the term
of office of the members of the committee of management of the
sec.,nd appellant.
Section 29(1) provides that the management of every co-
D operative society shall vest in a committee of management constituted
in accordance with the Act, the rules and the bye-laws. Sub-section
(2) provides that the term of the elected members of the committee
of management shall be such as may be provided in the rules or the
bye-laws of the society. Rule 445(1) provides that exceot as other-
wise provided in rules 406, 433, 434 and 435 the term of the office
E of the elected members of the committee of management of a co-
operative society shall be three co-operative years ·including the
co-operative year of their election. Explanation appended to this
Rule clarifies how the period of three co-operative years is to be
computed. In substance the explanation clarifies that :
F "For the purpose of determination on the term of a
elected member the co-operative year during which the
elections are held shall count as full year irrespective of the
period left after such election in that co-operative year".
There is a proviso to this explanation which is immaterial. The
G expression 'co,operative year' is defined in seciion 2(i) of the Act
to mean the year commencing on the l st day of July and ending on
the 30th day of June next following.
Part VJ of the Rules sets out procedure for holding the election.
H Election of members of committee of management of a co-operative -./-
society has to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Act
and rules l!l!!l lh~ J?istri~t M a~istr11te of the district in which the
RAM PYARB v. U.P. STATE (Desai, J.) 211
headquarter of the society is situated, shall' take steps to organise
the election under the 'superintendence, direction and control of the
Registrar [see rule 439(1)]. Sub-rule (I) of rule 439 provides that the
election In a co-operative society ·or societies or a class or classes of
, co-operative societies shall be held on such due date or dates as the
Registrar may by order fix and the District Magistrate concerned
shall on such dates being so fixed appoint by order one or more B
Election Officers or different Election Officers for different class or
classes of society or for different areas for this purpose. Sub-rule (3)
provides that the Election Officer shall perform all such functions
as are enjoined upon him by the Rules or as may be incidental to or
necessary for the discharge of his duties. Rule 444 provides that
the counting of votes will take place immediately after the closing c
of the poll and in case it is not possible to count votes immediately
after the close of the poll, the ballot boxes shall be sealed by tlie
Election Officer and kept in the safe custody in the nearest police
station. Sub-rule (4) of rule 444 provides that the Election Officer
shall announce the result of election as soon as the counting is
completed indicating the number of votes secured by each candidate.
D
Sub-rule (6) proxides that the Election Officer shall display a list of
elected candidates on the notice board of the society and also at
such public places as he lllay deem fit. Sub-rule (7) provides that a
copy of the iist prepared under sub-rule (6) shall be sent to the
Dirtrict Assistant Registrar concerned or the offic.er authorised under E
sub-rule (2) of rule 440 and also to .Secretary /Managing Director
of the Society concerned.
Having noticed the conspectus of the provisions bearing on the
topic 'election to a co-operative society', the principal point canvassed
in this petition may be examined. According to the appellant even
F
though the poll was held on September 11, 1978, the result, as
required by rule 444(4), was declared for the first time on January
28, J980, the term of three co-operative years of the elected members
of the co-operative society will expire on June 30, 1982.
On the other hand, according to the respondents, as the poll G
was held on September 11, 1978, the term of three co-operative
years including the co-operative year of the election has expired on
30th June, 1981 and therefore the order appointing the administrator
was legal and valid.
The question that emerges on riyal contentions is as to from
what date the term of the el~ted memb~~~ ~f ti\~ C(ommitt~~ <if
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982) 3 S.C.R.
A management shall commence. The period of three vears as ampli·
fied by the Explanation to rule 445(1) is to be·reckoned not from the
date of the election but the term shall be. three co-operative years
including the co-operative year of .the election. The co-operative
year, as pointed out earlier, commences on July 1 and ends on June
30 of the next succeeding year. Therefore, if the term commences
B from the date of poll which happened to be September 11, 1978,
the whole of co-operative year commencing from July 1, 1978 would
have to be. taken into reckoning for computing the term of three
years and, therefore, three years would expire on June 30, 1981.
The question, however, is whether mere holding of the poll cons·
titutes election of the members of committee of management or the
c result being declared after the counting has been completed and
notified in the manner prescribed by sub-rules (6) and (7) of ruie
444 would provide the starting point for a terminus quo for the term
of office to commence. If the term was to commence on the
declaration of the result of election, in this case admittedly the result
was declared on January 28, 1980, that date would fall within
D the co-operative year from July l, 1979 to June 30, 1980, and
the term of three co-operative years would expire on June 30, 1982.
At one stage, Mr. Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents
stated that there is no stage like declaration of result when· the
election of the members of the committee of management of a
E co-operative society is held .. Sub-rule (4) of rule 444 clearly indi-
. cates to the contrary and it casts an obligation on the Election
Officer to announce the resuli of election as soon as the counting is
complete and he is also under a duty to indicate the number of votes
secured by each candidate. His duty does not end there. He bas ; ...._
F to display a list of elected candidates on the notice board of the y-·
society and also at such public places as he may d~em fit. He is I
also under an obligation to send a copy of the list prepared under
sub-n1le (6) to the District Assistant Registrar concerned. It is,
therefore, not possible to accept the submission that there
is nothing like a stage of announcement of the result of election
G when election is held for electing members of the committee of
management of a co-operative society. In fact, the various stages
of election are clearly demarcated in the rules. If the poll has
become necessary and is held the unavoidable and inescapable stage.
of counting of votes and the next stage of announcement of result
and subsequently publicising the result are part and parcel and ..../--
H
necessary adjuncts of condm;ting poll. If the rules provide for all
the three stages it is difficult to accept the submission that by merely
RAM PYARE v. U.P. STA1E (Desai, J.) id
holding of the poll, the process of election can be said to have been A
completed and the term of members who had contested would
commence from the time of holding the· election. That is what the
High Court holds. Says the High Court :
, "that the elections since were held o_n 11 :9.78, mere
act of not declaring the result on account of any order B
issued by \he Court or a stay order grauted by it which was
subsequently vacated· could not be taken as if- the term of.
the committee of the management has not commenced" .
..;../
- The High Court, at another stage, _observed that the postponement
of declaration of the result did not justify the holding of the view c
that elections had not been held in September 1978. Taken to the
logical end, the judgment of the High Court would imply that
elected and non-elected members both who participated in the poll
would have their term as members commence since the poll is held.
Coul_d this be the intendment ·.of rule 445(1)? This approach
betrays lack of knowledge of the democratic process of election. D
When the number of the members to be elected to the committee
of management is fixed and candidates in excess of the fixed number
are desirous of seeking office, the democratic process postulates
holding of elections. Mere holding of poll which means recording
of votes without anything more would be inconsequential. It is the
counting of votes and the.consequent declaration of.result showing E
who amongst the contesting candidates has secured highest number_
> of votes or large number of votes which would determine who has
become eligible for office by the democratic process. _Therefore,
recording of votes is a preliminary stage, t~e counting of votes and
--- ·~
\,
declaration of result are integral and inseparable part of process of
holding and completing the process of election. No election process
can be said to be complete unless the votes are recorded, they are
counted and_ those who have secured highest number of votes are
declared elected and the result is publicised, as required by the
relevant provision. Rule_ 445(1) provides that the term of office of
the elected members of a committee of management of a co-operative
society shall be three co-operative years including the co-operative G
year of their election. This provision indicates the terminus quo
for commencement of the term, viz., that the term of office of the
elected members would bi three co-operative years including the
year of their election. Election means process of being elected- and H
the term of office is of the elected member, not of contesting
member. 1When candidates offer themselves for election, they are·
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] 3 s.c.R.
A called candidates and unless elected the term of such candidates
would not commence. Their term ~ould commence when elected.
The expression 'year of their election' even on literal and gram·
matic:al construction would mean the year in which the member
concerned whose term is in dispute, is declared elected meaning
thereby he became eligible for office and entitled to e•ter office as
B a member. Apart from literal construction, the completed process
of election comprehends nomination, recording of votes, counting
of votes and declaration of result and publicising and notifying the .
result. There ends the process of election. Recording of votes is
~
,·.~
a mere stage in the process of election. Even when votes are
recorded, the candidates contesting the poll do not acquire the
c status of members of committee of management. That status is
acquired on being declared elected. And unless that status is
acquired the term of office as member cannot begin to run. There-
fore, the expression 'co-operative year of their election year', upon
trlie construction can only mean the year in which the member is
declared elected and not the year in which he contested the poll.
D
Turning to the facts of this case, undoubtedly the poll was
held on September 11, 1978, but in view of the injunction granted
by the learned Munsif the respondents were restrained from declaring
th~ result. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respon·
dents in the High Court, the fact. that ·the result was declared on
E January 28, 1980, is admitted. The relevant portion teads as under;
"4. That the election of the committee of manage-
ment of the Federation was held on 11.9. 78 and not on
28.1.80 as alleged in the writ petition. In fact, the election
was actually' held on 11.9.78, but the declaration of the
result of election stayed in pursuance of the order of
learned Munsif, Basti, in Suit No. 29 J of 1978 (Kashi
Nath Tripathi v. D.M., Basti). Consequent upon the
order of the learned Munsif, the election officer also passed
similar order on 11.9.78 on which date the election was
held. Th-e result was subsequently declared on 28.1.80".
G
It is thus an admitted position that even though the poll was held ·
on September II, 1978, on account of the injunction granted by the
Court, the result was declared on January 28, 1980. On the very
next day, i.e. January 29, 1980, first appellant was elected as
H Chairman of the Federation. Once it is admitted that the result
was declared on January 28, 1980, the term of the members of the
committee of the management would commence fron1 the co-
!!.AM PYARll v. ti.P. STATE (Desai, J.) ~IS
operative year July 1, 1979, ending with June 30, 1980, and
including this year the term would be of ihree years. Therefore,
obviousiy the term would expire on June 30, 1982.
Mr. Dixit; however, urged that where for any reason whatsoever,
election of the elected members of the committee of management
has not taken place or could not take place before the expiry. of B
the term of elected members, the committee of management shall,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Act or the Rules or
the bye-laws of the society, cease to exist on the expiry of the said
term. In support of this submission he relied upon sub-section
(4) (a) and (b) of section 29. They may be extracted :
'y "29. Committee of management :
c
x x x
(4) (a) . Where, for any reason whatsoever the election of
the elected members of the committee of manage-
ment has not taken place or could not take place D
before. expiry of the term of elected members, the
committee of. management shall, notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in this Act or the rules, or
the bye-laws of the Society, cease to exist on the
expiry of such term.
E
(b) On or as soon as may be after the expiry of such ·
term, the Registrar shall appoint an Administrator
-- .
for the management of the affairs of the society
until the reconstitution of the Committee of
\
Management in accordance with the provisions of
\ this Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the society, F
and the Registrar shall have power to change the
-· Administrator from time to time :
• Provided that so long as no Administrator
is appointed under this sub-section, the Secretary
or the Managing Director, as the case may be, of G
the society shall be in ch~rge. only of the current
duties of the committee of management.
Explanation-Where results of the election of members of
the Committee of Management have not been or could not H
be declared, for any reason whatsoever, before the expiry
of the term of the elected members of the outgoing ~ommiloo
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] 3 s.c.il..
A tee, it shall be deemed that the election of the elected
members of the committee has not taken place within the
meaning of this su_b-section".
Sub-section 4(a) would. not be attracted at all in the facts of this
case because when the terrn of the members of the former committee
of management expired, poll was held on September 11, 1978.
B
Once poll was held as a part of the programme of the election it
must progress to the statutory end of declaration of result. Unless
the term begins to run it cannot come to an end. Sub-section (4)
(a) caters to a situation where the term of the members of a
committee of management bas begun and the election could not be
c held before the expiry of the term then, notwithstanding that no
election has been held the term of the member~ of the former
committee would come to an end and the committee of management
would cease to exist on expiry of said term. Sub-section (4) (b)
would only by be attracted if the term:expires as contemplated by sub-
section (4) (a). If the term expires and the old managing committee
D whose term has expired ceases to exist and the election has not been
held or could not be held to elect a new committee of management
then in the interregnum the Registrar has the power to appoint an
administrator for the management of the affairs of the society. In
the fact situation as we have in the present case, sub-section (4) (a)
and (b) are not attracted and, therefore, the provision therein
E contained would ncit assist the respondent in any manner.
As the term of the committee of management would commence
·from the co-operative year fromJuly ; 1979 to June 1980, the same
would expire on June 30, 1982. On this reckoning the Registrar
could not have ismed teleprinter message declaring that the term
F bas come to an end on June 30, 1981. If the term had not expired,
the administrator could not he appointed as contemplated by sub-
section (4) (b) of section 29. Therefore, the order of the Deputy
Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Gorakhpur Division dated
July l, 1981, appointing administrator is without jurisdictioi;i and
is clearly illegal and invalid and must be quashed and set aside.
G
Mr. Dixit lastly urged that even on the view this Court would
take, the term of the committee .of management would expire on June
30, J982, and therefore, hardly a period of four months remains and
the Court should not, therefore, disturb the administrator. This
H submission does not commend to us because the Government by
executive fiat cannot reduce the term of office statutorily fixed.
Further, the elections to panchayats, co-operative societies and
RAM PYAIUJ'V. u.P. STATE (Desai, J.) 217
smaller local bodies provide an apotheosis or a training ground for A
success of our larger experiment of parliamentary democracy.
Election process is sacrosanct, Members elected must be permitted te
I\ discharge their functions as chosen representatives of the electorate
11 ' ' for the statutory terms. Such a drastic power of removing elected
representatives before the expiry of term a·nd substituting non-elected
persons must receive strict and narrow interpretation at the hands of B
the courts. If allowed to· foster it would be the negation of the
democratic process and would engulf the whole fabric of democratic
institutions which we are trying to build up. Therefore, even though
the term would expire roughly after four months, we would be
perfectly justified in removing the administrator and re-instating the
elected representatives. · c
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the ·
High Court is set aside. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued
quashing the impugned order dated July I, 1981, of the Deputy
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur.
It is declared that the term of the committee of management of D
District Co-operative Federation Limited, Basti, and the !st appel·
!ant-Chairman has not expired and the elected member§ continue to
occupy the office. The administrator is hereby directed to hand
over the charge forthwith to the Chairman of the Committee of
Management. There will be no order as to costs. ·
E.
H.L.C. Appeal allowed.
-·'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Cooperative societies"Sign in to search