P.C.
1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by Assistant Commissioner (I & M). Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operation, Government of India dated 29th November, 2002 (Exhibit-I). By the said communication, the General Manager of the Bharat Co-operative bank (Mumbai) Limited was informed that since the election of the Board of Directors of the Bank was held in October, 2000 under the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'), which was in vogue and the term of office of the elected members of the Board of Directors of the Bank was for not exceeding three years' from the date of election under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the old Act, the term will come to an end on completion of three years.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Multi-State Co-operative Society. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 16 are the elected members of the Board of Directors. On October 2, 2000, there was an election of Board of Directors wherein petitioner Nos. 2 to 16 were elected. Section 35 (3) of the old Act provided that the term of the office of the Board of Directors shall be such as specified in the bye-laws of the Multi-State Co-operative Society which shall not exceed three years from the date of election. By-law 29, however, provided such period to be five years. It is not in dispute that with effect from August 19, 2000, the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act') came into force. Sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the new Act provides that the term of the office of the elected members shall be such not exceeding five years from the date of election.
3. Section 35 of the old Act of 1984 and Section 45 of the new Act of 2002 read as under:
'35. (1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for and the conduct of elections of the members of the board of such multi-State co-operative societies or class of multi-State co-operative societies as the Central Government may by general or special order notify, shall be vested in such returning officers as may be appointed by the Central Registrar in this behalf.
(2) The vote at such elections shall be by secret ballot.
(3) The term of office of the elected members of the board shall be such, not exceeding three years from the date of election, as may be specified in the bye-laws of a multi-State co-operative society:
Provided that the elected members shall continue to hold office till their successors are elected or nominated under the provisions of this Act or the rules or the bye-laws and assume the charge of their office.
(4) No person shall be eligible to be elected as a member of the board of a multi-State co-operative society unless he is a member of the general body of that society.
(5) The Central Government may make rules generally to provide for or to regulate matters in respect of elections of members of the board.
'45. (1) The conduct of elections to the board of a multi-State co-operative society shall be the responsibility of the existing board.
(2) The election of members of the board shall be held by secret ballot in the manner as may be prescribed.
(3) The election of the members of the board shall be held in the general meeting of the members of the multi-State co-operative society.
(4) The elected members of the board shall, if the bye-laws of such society permit, be eligible for re-election.
(5) The term of office of the elected members of the board shall be such, not exceeding five years from the date of elections, as may be specified in the bye-laws of a multi-State co-operative society.
Provided that elected members shall continue to hold office till their successors are elected or nominated under the provisions of this Act or the rules or bye-laws and assume charge of their office.
(6) Where the board fails to conduct election of the members of board, the Central Registrar shall hold the election within a period of ninety days from the date when such election became due.
(7) No person shall be eligible to be elected as a member of the board of a multi-state co-operative society unless he is a member of the general body of that society.
(8) The expenses for holding election by the Central Registrar shall be borne by the multi-State co-operative society.
(9) The Central Government may make rules generally to provide for or to regulate matters is respect of election of members of the board.
3A. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, it is not doubt true, that in October, 2000, the members of the Board of Directors were elected. It is also true that Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the old Act provided that the period would not exceed three years. it was, however, submitted that the section also provided that the term of office of the elected members of the Board would be as may be specified in the bye-laws of a Multi-State Co-operative Society. It was stated that the bye-laws provided such period to be not more than five years. It was therefore, submitted that the members of the Board of directors would be entitled to hold the office not exceeding five years. It was also submitted that Sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the new Act fixed such term not exceeding five years from the date of election of the members of the Board of Directors.
4. In this connection, the attention or the Court was also invited by the learned Counsel to Sub-section (2) of Section 126 of the new Act. Section 126 of the new Act provides for repeal and saving. Sub-section (2) of the said section states that without prejudice to the provisions contained in the General Clauses Act, 1897, any notification, rule, order, requirement, registration, certificate, notice, decision etc. etc. given or done under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 shall, if in force at the commencement of the new Act, continue to be in force and have effect as if made issued, given or done under the corresponding provisions of the new Act. It was, therefore, submitted that though three years had been over after the election of the Board of Directors under the old Act of 1984, considering and keeping in mind the relevant bye-laws as also Sub-section (5) of Section 45 read with Section 126(2) of the new Act, the petitioners would be entitled to hold the office up to five years, i.e. up to October, 2005.
5. We are unable to uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. So far as the provisions of the old Act are concerned, they were unambiguous and clear. Sub-section (3) of Section 35 in no uncertain terms declared that such period would not exceed three years.It is no doubt true that the bye-law provided such period of office upto five years but, in our opinion, the learned counsel for the respondents is right in contending that to that extent the bye-law was inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act, and it should not be given effect to or implemented.
6. As far as Sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the new Act is concerned, admittedly the said Act came into force in August, 2002. The election in the instant case was held in 2000. The rights of the elected members were created and crystallized under the old Act. What was sought to be protected under Section 126(2) of the new Act is the rights accrued under the old Act, i.e. up to the period under the old Act and they would not get adversely affected.
7. A decision of the Supreme Court in Chimera Parulekar and Ors. v. District Magistrate, Thane, Bombay and Ors., AIR 1952 SC 342 is not relevant as in that case, the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act were interpreted by the Supreme Court. Similarly, the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this court in B.G. Chavan v. State of Bombay, : AIR1955Bom334 would also not help the petitioners as in that case, by a subsequent amending Act, the life of the municipality was extended.
8. The proviso to Section 19 of the Act (Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925) as inserted by Act XXXV of 1954 stated:
'Provided further that where the term of office of a municipality is extended under this Act to a term not exceeding in the aggregate five years the president and vice-president holding offices immediately before the date with effect from which such term is extended shall continue to hold their respective offices until the date on which the term so extended expires.
9. Considering the provisions of the Act of 1925 as amended by the Act of 1954, the Division Bench held that the term of the municipality got extended by operation of law.
10. In our opinion, therefore, the ratio laid down in B.G. Chavan will not apply to the facts of the case of hand.
11. No doubt the learned counsel placed heavy reliance on a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 3816 of 1969 decided on 13th December, 1969 Managing Committee of Bidinagar Larger Sized Co-operative Credit Society v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bhongir. In may, however, be stated that it was a converse case. In that case, the relevant statute i.e. the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 fixed the term of the Managing Committee not exceeding three years as may be specified in the bye-laws. The relevant bye-law curtailed such term to one year. It was thereafter amended and was brought in consonance with the provisions of the parent Act by providing three years. Keeping in view the amendment, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the elected member would be entitled to the benefit available under the parent Act and it must be given effect to.
12. In our opinion, the ratio laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, therefore, does not apply to the facts of the present case.
13. Finally, the ratio laid down in Gajraj Singh and Ors. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors., : AIR1997SC412 , in our opinion, instead of assisting the petitioners rather goes against them. Considering the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the Court observed:
'Section 6 of the General Clauses Act enumerates, inter alia, that where the Act repeals any enactment, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced.'
14. In the present case, an election of the Managing Committee was held in 2000. It was under the old Act. Section 35 (3) of the old Act prescribed the term of the elected members of the Managing Committee upto three years. The rights of the elected members accrued and crystallised under the said provision. Those rights were protected and saved by Section 126 of the new Act. That does not, however, entitle the members of the Managing Committee to claim a term of five years fixed under Section 45(3) of the new Act. The grievance of the petitioners, therefore, has no substance and cannot be upheld.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
Parties be given copies of this order duly authenticated by the Associate/Sheristedar/Private Secretary.