B.H. Marlapalle, J.
1. This petition filed under Articles 226 and227 of the Constitution, deals with the interpretation of Section 73-A(5) of theMaharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, 'the Act'.) and praysfor a writ or direction that the respondent No. 5 has suffered disqualificationunder the said provision, on the ground that he has been a designated Officer ofthe respondent No. 6 Bank i.e. Vaijapur Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. atVaijapur for more than 10 years in aggregate/consecutively. Before we examinethe rival contentions and record our findings, it would be imperative to set out thefactual matrix in greater details so as to appreciate the issues involved in thispetition.
2. The respondent No. 6 Bank, is a co-operative bank, registered under theAct and its area of operation was enlarged pursuant to the resolution dated 11-11-1973 to the municipal area of Vaijapur (a Tahsil Headquarter) and GramPanchayat Area of Lasur Station in Gangapur Taluka of Aurangabad District. Byfurther resolution dated 14-2-1981, the area of operation was further extended toVaijapur, Gangapur and Kannad Towns and the Grampanchayat area of Lasurstation (Kannad is also taluka headquarter in Aurangabad District). This area ofoperation was further extended to Sillod and Paithan towns as well as themunicipal corporation area of Aurangabad City and the Grampanchayat area ofvillage Pandharpur, Taluka Aurangabad and Pishor (Taluka Kannad), byresolution dated 8-10-1995. The same area of operation remained till 26thSeptember 2000 when it was extended to the entire Aurangabad District.
3. The share capital of the respondent No. 6 Bank is set out in thefollowing tabular statement:
Yearended onPaidup CapitalAuthorisedCapital
30th June 19909,88,500/-11,00,000/-30th June 199112,61,900/-15,00,000/-30th March 199218,28,800/-20,00,000/-31st March 199323,60,400/-30,00,000/-31st March 199430,53,700/-40,00,000/-31st March 199539,56,700/-40,00,000/-31st March 199643,99,900/-45,00,000/-31st March 199745,36,600/-45,00,000/-31st March 199846,64,900/-50,00,000/-31st March 199949,37,500/-1 Crore31st March 200051,88,800/-1 Crore31st March 200154,99,300/-1 Crore
4. On 15-2-1999, the manager of respondent No. 6 Bank, addressed a letterto the respondent No. 3, pointing out that the then Chairman had completed atenure of 10 years as a designated officer of the said Bank i.e. from 17-2-1989 to17-2-1999, and advice was sought, as to whether he could be continued further inview of the provisions of Section 73A of the Act. A reminder was sent on the saidsubject on 23rd February, 1999 and finally by his letter dated 24-2-1999, therespondent No. 3 was informed by the respondent No. 4 that the then ChairmanShri Jugraj Amlokchand Sancheti was elected as a Chairman of respondent No. 6vide resolution dated 17-10-1989 for a full term of 5 years and again on 16-7-1995, he was elected Chairman for the second term, without any break and in thismanner, as on 17-10-1999, he had completed a period of 10 years as Chairman ofthe said Bank. It was also pointed out that the share capital of the Bank was49,30,900 as on 23-2-1999 and its area of operation extended to Vaijapur, Sillod,Kannad, Paithan and Gangapur municipal limits, Aurangabad municipalcorporation limits and Lasur station (Gangapur Taluka), Pandharpur andRanjangaon Shenkunje (Aurangabad Taluka) village panchayat limits. Based onthis report, the respondent No. 3, by communication dated 25-2-1999, informedthe Manager of respondent No. 6 Bank that Shri Jugraj Sancheti had completed acontinuous tenure of 10 years as Chairman of the Bank and, therefore, he wasdisqualified to hold any office of a designated officer any further and his tenureas Chairman came to an end on 17-2-1999. It appears that Shri Jugraj Sancheti,submitted an application under Sub-section (2A) of Section 73A of the Act beforerespondent No. 3 and claimed that he did not suffer any disqualification. Thisapplication was adjudicated upon by the respondent No. 3 and was opposed bythe present respondent No. 5. The case was registered as Shri Jugraj Sancheti v. Bhagwan Tambe, Vaijapur (present respondent No. 5) and by decision dated 22-6-2001, the application submitted by Shri Sancheti was turned down. Therespondent No. 3 held that Shri Sancheti was not eligible to continue as theChairman of the respondent No. 6 Bank, in view of Section 73-A(5) of the Act.
5. Pursuant to the communication dated 25-2-1999, addressed by therespondent No. 3, the present respondent No. 5 was elected as Chairman of therespondent No. 6 Bank on 11-3-1999 and he continued in the said post till 19-3-2001 i.e. till the expiry of 5 years tenure of the Managing Committee. Thereafter,the elections to the managing committee of respondent No. 6 Bank were held in March, 2001 and on 20-3-2001, the respondent No. 5 came to be re-elected asChairman and thus, he resumed the office of Chairman for the second time andhe continues to occupy the said post as at present. His tenure as Vice-Chairmanand Chairman of the Bank could be shown as under for ready reference :
17-2-1989 to 18-2-1995 Vice-Chairman19-2-1995 to 15-7-1995 Vice-Chairman16-7-1995 to 10-3-1999 Vice-Chairman11-3-1999 to 19-3-2001 Chairman20-3-2001 onwards Chairman
6. The present petitioner had submitted an application to the respondent No. 3 on 11-5-2001 through Shri A. D. Kasliwal, Advocate and prayed fordeclaration that the respondent No. 5 had suffered disqualification under Section 73A(5) of the Act from holding the post of a designated officer i.e. Chairman andVice Chairman of the respondent No. 6 Bank. As there was no final decision, thepetitioner approached us in the instant petition filed on or about 10-7-2001.While issuing notice before admission, a Division Bench of this Court referred tothe application submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No. 3 and directedthe Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to hold an enquiry, after giving duenotice to the concerned, to find out whether the respondent No. 6, Co-operativeBank, fell in one of the categories mentioned under Section 73A(2) of the Act andif so from which date. The decision was required to be submitted within a periodof 4 weeks, and accordingly, the respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 3rdOctober, 2001, holding that the respondent No. 6 bank is not engaged in anycommercial activities and the same is also not classified as a Commercial Societyand it did not fall under any of the 3 categories under Sub-section (2) of Section 73A of the Act till 25th September, 2000 and from 26th September, 2000, it fellin the category-Ill under the said sub-section.
7. This order was brought on record and the petition came up for hearing,on admission. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondentsregarding alternative remedy by way of Revision under Section 154 of the Act onthe ground that the order passed by the respondent No. 3, could be challenged byfiling such a Revision. By our order dated 11-2-2002, while granting rule, thepreliminary objection was rejected with the following observations :
'The issue raised in this petition is regarding the interpretation of Section 73(A)(2) and (5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960.
We deem it appropriate to overrule the preliminary objectionregarding alternative remedy by way of revision against the impugnedorder passed by the District Deputy Registrar, as the said issue ofalternative remedy could not be considered while we are required tointerpret the meaning and effect of the provisions of Section 73A of thesaid Act.'
8. When C. A. No. 3024/2002 filed in the present petition came to bedecided on 18-6-2002, a contention was raised on behalf of the respondent No. 5that the petition was required to be placed before the Single Bench and thisobjection was also overruled.
9. The respondent State Authorities as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6have supported the order passed by respondent No. 3 on 3rd October, 2001 andhave urged before us that it does not call for any interference at our hands and thepetition is required to be dismissed. Apart from the Preliminary objectionregarding alternative remedy and the objection to be heard by Single Bench,which objection have been rejected by earlier orders of this Court, the learnedcounsel for the respondent No. 5 submitted that the respondent No. 3 has in hisorder dated 3rd October, 2001, considered the facts and on analysing the same,recorded the finding that the respondent No. 6 Bank did not fall in any of the 3categories mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 73A of the Act and it is notengaged in any commercial activity and, therefore, these finding of facts shouldnot be interfered or disturbed by us, while exercising our supervisory powers. Insupport of this contention, reliance has been placed on the following decisions ofthe Apex Court:
1] 'Shiladevi v. Jaspal Singh', : AIR1999SC2859 .
2] 'Manager St. Thomas U. P. School Kerala v. Commissioner of General Education Department', : AIR2002SC756 .
10. So far as the preliminary objection regarding alternative remedy isconcerned, notwithstanding the fact that the said objection is no more open tochallenge in view of our order dated 11-2-2002, we may usefully refer to theDivision Bench judgment of this Court in the case of 'Haribhau Ramrao v. Stateof Maharashtra' reported in 1994(2) Mh.L.J. 1885 = 1994 MCR 657. The petition was moved before us seeking a declaration that the Chairman and Vice-Chairmanof a Sugar Factory were disqualified to continue to be the designated officers inview of the provisions of Section 73(A)(5) of the Act. While an application for suchdeclaration was pending before the commissioner of Sugar, this Court had directedon 6-9-1994, to the said Commissioner to decide the matter relating todisqualifications of the Chairman and Vice Chairman. The Commissioner hadsubmitted his findings on 17-9-1995 and held that they were not disqualified. Thesaid order was challenged by amending the petition and the petition was entertainedand decided on merits. The petition was allowed and a declaration was given thatthe Chairman and Vice Chairman of the said karkhana, had ceased to hold therespective offices. In the instant petition as well, after respondent No. 3 passed anorder dated 3rd October, 2001, the petition has been amended challenging thelegality of the said order and it has been prayed to quash and set aside the same byissuing a writ of Certiorari. We, thus, overrule all the preliminary objections raisedon behalf of the respondents for entertaining this petition.
11. On merits, the following issues arise for our considerations, namely,
(a) Whether the respondent No. 6 is covered under the exception inexplanation below Sub-section (2) of Section 73A of the Act;
(b) Whether the respondent No. 6 was in any of the three categoriesmentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 73A of the Act from 1990onwards;
(c) Whether the order passed by respondent No. 3 on 3rd October,2001 is sustainable in law; and
(d) Whether the declaration sought for, can be granted.
12. Section 73A came to be incorporated under the Act by amendment of1969 and it came into force from 1st July, 1971. Sub-sections (1) to (5) as are incorporated, which are relevant for our considerations read as under :
73A. Disqualification for being designated officer simultaneously ofcertain categories of societies or for being designated officer of the samesociety for more than ten years (1) In this section and in Sections 73C,73D and 73E, 'a designated Officer' means the Chairman and thePresident, and includes any other officer of the society as may bedeclared by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette,to be a designated officer, but does not include any officer appointed ornominated by the State Government or by the Registrar.(2) No person shall, at the same time, be or continue to be a designatedOfficer of more than one society falling in Category I or Category II orCategory III of the categories mentioned below; and shall not be orcontinue to be a designated Officer in more than two societies in theaggregate in the three categories :--
Category I: Societies, the area of operation of which extends to thewhole of the State.
Category II : Societies, the area of operation of which does notextend to the whole of the State --
(a) but extends to Greater Bombay and the authorised sharecapital of which is more than Rs. 10 Lakhs; or
(b) but extends to one or more districts; or
(c) and is less than a district, but the authorised share capital of which is more than Rs. 10 lakhs.
Category III : Societies, the area of operation of which does notextend to the whole of a district but extends to one or more talukas, orthe authorised share capital which is not more than Rs. 10 lakhs but isless than Rs. 5 lakhs. (Explanation : For the purpose of this sub-section,the expression 'Society' shall not include a society with no share capitaland a society not engaged in commercial activities.)Clause (c) of Category II under Sub-section (2) suffered an amendment byMaharashtra 11 of 1976 and for the words 'and is also less than a district, but'the words 'is less than a district and' were substituted and the amended Sub-section (2), thereafter read as under:--
(2) No person shall, at the same time, be or continue to be a designatedOfficer of more than one society falling in Category I or Category II orCategory III of the categories mentioned below; and shall not be orcontinue to be a designated Officer in more than two societies in theaggregate in the three categories:--
Category I: Societies, the area of operation of which extends to thewhole of the State.
Category II : Societies, the area of operation of which does notextend to the whole of the State --
(a) but extends to Greater Bombay and the authorised sharecapital of which is more than Rs. 10 Lakhs; or
(b) but extends to one or more districts; or
(c) is less than a district and the authorised share capital of which is more than Rs. 10 lakhs.
Category III : Societies, the area of operation of which does notextend to the whole of a district but extends to one or more talukas, orthe authorised share capital which is not more than Rs. 10 lakhs but isless than Rs. 5 lakhs.
(Explanation : For the purpose of this sub-section, the expression'Society' shall not include a society with no share capital and a society not engaged in commercial activities.)
13. The categorization under Sub-section (2) suffered yet anotheramendment in 1996 by Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act,1995 and the present amended provisions of Sub-section (2) read as under:
(2) 'No person shall, at the same time be or continue to be, a designatedofficer of more than one society falling in Category I or Category II orCategory III of the categories mentioned below; and shall not be orcontinue to be a designated officer in more than two societies in theaggregate in the three categories:--
Category I:-- Societies, the area of operation of which extends tothe whole of the State.
Category II :-- Societies, the area of operation of which does notextend to the whole of the State,
(a) but extends to at least one whole district irrespective of theirauthorised share capital; or
(b) but extends to areas comprised in part or parts in one ormore districts and the authorised share capital of which ismore than Rs. 10 lakhs.
Category III : Societies, the area of operation of which does notextend to one whole district but extends at least to one whole taluka, orthe authorised share capital of which is not more than Rs. 10 lakhs but isnot less than Rs. 5 lakhs.)
Explanation :-- for the purposes of this sub-section, the expression'society' shall not include a society with no share capital and a societynot engaged in commercial activities).
Whereas Sub-section (5) as amended from time to time reads thus:'(5) No person shall be, or shall continue to be, a designated officer ofany society of any of the categories referred to in Sub-section (2) for aperiod of more than ten years in the aggregate and at the expiration ofthat period any such person shall cease to be a designated officer of thatsociety, and shall not be eligible for being re-elected or re-appointed as adesignated officer, until a period of one term of the committee haselapsed after the completion of the aforesaid period of ten years.
Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section :
(a) in calculating the aggregate period of ten years in office, anyperiod for which the person concerned may have been such officer,before the commencement of the Maharashtra Co-operativeSocieties (Second Amendment) Act, 1969, shall be ignored;
(b) If any person resigns his office as a designated officer at any timewithin twelve months of the date on which the aggregate period often years would, but for his resignation, have been completed, heshall be deemed to have completed the period of ten years on hisresignation'.
The Word 'consecutive' was substituted by word 'aggregate' and the period of 'six years' changed to the period of 'ten years' by amendment of1986. As per Sub-section (1) of Section 73A, a designated officer means, theChairman and the President and included any other officer of the society as maybe declared by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, tobe a designated Officer, but does not include any officer appointed or nominatedby the State Government or by the Registrar. Explanation to Sub-section (2) of Section 73A states that for the purpose of this sub-section, the expression'Society' shall not include a society with no share capital and a society notengaged in commercial activities. Placing reliance on this language of theexplanation, it is contended by the respondents that respondent No. 6 Bank is notengaged in any commercial activities and, therefore, it is not a society for thepurpose of categorization under Sub-section (2) of Section 73A and thus, it doesnot fall in any of the three categories stated therein. This contention has beenupheld by the respondent No. 3 in the impugned order dated 3rd October, 2001,and reference in support of this finding has also been made to the provisions ofRule 10 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules 1961 (for short 'theRules of 1961') The said Rules, reads thus :
Class
1 Sub-Class
2Explanation
3
1.Agriculturalsociety(a)Marketing SocietyAllpurchases and sale Unions and marketing societies of agricultural produce.
(b)Other Agricultural Societies
Dairyand Cattle Breeding Societies.
1-ACropProtection society--1-BLiftirrigation society--2.ConsumerSociety-Storesand Canteens3.Co-operativeBank(a)Central BankDistrictCentral Banks. (b) other banksUrbanBanks3ALandDevelopment Bank having provisions in their bye-laws to advanceloans to cooperative societies.
4.Farmingsociety(a)Collective Farming
FarmingSocieties where major area of lands is acquired from outside agencyfor cultivation bymembers.
(b)Joint farmingSocietieswhere the major area of land brought together for cultivation isheld by members.
(c)Dairy farmingFarming societies undertaking dairy activities complimentary to their arable farming or viceversa.
5.HousingSociety(a)Tenantownership society
Housingsocieties where land is held either on lease-hold or free-holdbasis by societies and houses are owned or are to be owned by members.
(b)Tenant co-partnership society
Housingsocieties which hold both land and buildings either on leasehold or tree hold basis and allot themto their members.
(c) other housing societies
House Mortgage societies and houseconstruction societies.
6.ProcessingSociety(a)Agricultural processing
Societies,which process agricultural produce like Co-operative sugarfactories and oil Mills.
(b)Industrial processing society
Woolprocessing and tanners societies.
7.Producers'Society(a)Industrial producers' society
Weaversand Caroebters Societiees.
(b)Labourers Industrial
ForestLabourers Societies and Labour Contract Societies.
8.ResourceSociety(a)Credit Resource Society
Agriculturalcredit, Thrift, Urban Credit and /Salary Earners' Societies.
(b)Non-credit Resource Society
Seedsand implements and agricultural requisites societies.
(c)Service Resource Society
ServiceCo-operative and Multi purpose Cooperative Societies.
9.GeneralSociety(a)SocialBetter living Societies and Education Societies
(b)CommercialInsuranceand Motor Transport Societies.
(c) OtherNotfalling in either of the above sub-classes.
(2) If the Registrar alters the classification of a society from one class ofsociety to another, or from one sub-class thereof to another, he shall issueto the society a copy of his order as in the case of an amendment of thebye-laws.
14. We have referred to the byelaws of the respondent No. 6 bank and it isclearly stipulated therein that it has been categories as a 'major class-co-operativebank' with special category 'other banks'. Thus, it is engaged in business ofbanking as contemplated under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. It is urgedbefore us that it does not carry out any commercial activity and, therefore, unlessit is categorised in 'general society' with special category 'commercial', as isstipulated under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1961, it could not fall in any of thecategories under Sub-section (2) of Section 73A of the Act. We have noticed theseare only enabling provisions and after registering a society, the registrar haspowers to clarify the category of the society. Admittedly, in the instant case,there is no order clarifying the Bank Class-9 (General society - Commercial).
15. The New Webster's Dictionary (Delux Encyclopedic Edition), definesthe word 'Commercial' as pertaining to commerce or trade; dealing with ordepending on commerce; carrying on commerce; produced for massconsumption, with profit as a primary aim, and often of interior quality. Themeaning of the term, 'Commercial Bank' in the said dictionary is, 'A bank thatincludes among its services checking accounts and short term loans to business.'.whereas 'Commercialize' means 'to render commercial in character, methods,or spirit; to make available for sale; to seek commercial profits from.
It is well-known that commercial establishment invariably undertake aneconomic activity, not casual but systematically or habitually conducted for theproduction or distribution of goods or for rendering services to the communityand organizing or arranging. It envisages the co-operative endeavour between theemployer and employee and it would also be a charitable organization or a purelyprofit making business enterprise.
16. On the face of these interpretations given to the term 'commercial', wedo not see any reason to accept the view taken by the respondent No. 3 and moreso when in the byelaws; the respondent No. 6 Bank itself has been categorized as'other Bank' under the Head of 'Major Co-operative Bank' which is nowequivalent to 'Co-operative Bank' under entry No. 3 of Rule 10 reproducedhereinabove. In addition, the respondent No. 3 (D.V. Sali) rejected theapplication filed by Shri Jugraj Sancheti, former Chairman and held that hesuffered disqualification under Sub-section 73A(5) of the Act, by his order dated22-6-2001, i.e. just about four months prior to the impugned order was passed. Itis not known, how his view was changed in respect of the status of therespondent No. 6 Bank, within a period of about 4 months. When theestablishment is engaged in a banking industry, which is carried out by the organized activities of employer and employees, with a profit motive, and underthe Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the directives issued from time to time, bythe Reserve Bank of India. It has a assured participation by the shareholders whoare normally the borrowers. Such shareholders are given dividends at the end ofthe financial year depending upon the profits of the Bank and by taking intoconsiderations the entire activities of the respondent No. 6 Bank, we have nodoubt in our mind that it does not fall under the exception carved out under theexplanation to Sub-section (2) of Section 73A of the Act. The view taken by therespondent No. 3 in this regard is, therefore, grossly erroneous and it cannot be,by any stretch of imagination, termed as a 'possible view'.
17. It is also pertinent to note at this stage that the learned GovernmentPleader on instructions from the Divisional Joint Registrar, Aurangabad statedthat the provisions of Section 73A(5) of the Act have been made applicable andthey are applied to the District Central Co-operative Banks and this is one morereason to hold that the co-operative banks are not covered under the exceptionmade out in explanation to Sub-section (2) of Section 73A of the Act. Though,this issue was not specifically covered in the decision of this Court in the case of : AIR1988Bom399 , which was confirmed in the case of : AIR1993SC59 , the constitutional validity of Section 73A was finally decidedby the Apex Court in the said case.
18. Now, coming to the issue of the categories as stipulated under Sub-section (2) so as to attract the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 73A of theAct, we have noted that, right from the beginning, the area of operation of therespondent No. 6 Bank had exceeded beyond limits of Vaijapur Town inasmuchas, initially, it was the municipal limits of Vaijapur town and the villagepanchayat limits of Lasur Station in Gangapur Taluka of Aurangabad District.But, by 1987, the operational area of the Bank was extended to the municipalarea of Vaijapur, Gangapur, Kannad and village panchayat area of Lasur Stationin Gangapur Taluka. At no point of time, the area of operation of the respondentNo. 6 Bank was a Taluka or part thereof and it always extended beyond one ormore Talukas. As in 1987, it extended to 3 Talukas, namely, Vaijapur, Gangapurand Kannad and the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 73A prior to theamendment of 1996 had three sub-categories in Category (II) and Category (iii)included Societies, the area of operation of which, did not extend to, to the wholeof the District but extended to one or more Talukas. It also covered the societies,the authorised share capital of which was not more than Rs. 10 lakhs, but wasless than Rs. 5 lakhs. Two different Division Benches of this Court i.e. in thecase of 'Kisan Govindrao Walke v. State of Maharashtra' 1984 Mh.L.J. 162and in 'The Bhandara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State ofMaharashtra and Ors.' : AIR1988Bom399 have held thatthe word, 'or' used in Category III cannot be read as 'and'. Therefore, there are2 different group of Societies which are envisaged under Category-Ill sub-category (c) in Category II, after its amendment of 1976, reads thus :
'Societies, the area of operation of which does not extend to the whole ofthe State, but is less than a District, the 'authorised share capital ofwhich is more than 10 lakhs'.
As against the language used for the purpose of Sub-section (2) regardingCategory-II, it is noticed that the amendment of 1996 has used words like,'Whole District' or 'whole Taluka' which words were not in the originalprovision in category-II. The amended provisions, reads thus :
Category-II 'Societies, the area of operation of which does not extend to the whole of the State,
(a) but extends to one whole District irrespective of their authorisedshare capital
(b) but extends to area comprised in part or parts in one or more Districts and the authorised share capital is more than Rs. 10 lakhs.
If regards be had to the language of Category II under Sub-section 2 prior to its Act, 1996, undoubtedly, the respondent No. 6 fell under Category II (c) from 30th June, 1990 onwards. Its authorised share capital was more than Rs. 10 Lakhs on that date and the area of its operation was less than a District. However, after the area of operation was extended to the entire District of Aurangabad on 26th September, 2000, it would certainly fall in Category (II)(b) of the amended provisions in 1996. The finding of respondent No. 3 that it fell under category III after 26-9-2000 is, thus, patently erroneous. 19-20. The preamble to the Amendment Act of 1969 in Clause 12 statedthus :
'In the co-operative movement in the State, a group of persons have beenholding the key positions in several important co-operative institutionssimultaneously and for long period. With the result that new leadership isnot being built up to the desired extent and the movement is tending tobecome a close preserve of a few individuals. To check this unhealthytendency and to give a more democratic character to the co-operativeinstitutions, it is necessary to prescribe certain limitations in the statuteitself. Accordingly, it has been proposed that a person should not hold animportant office like Chairman or President in more than one society ateach of the three levels, viz. Apex, District and Taluka level. Similarly, ithas been proposed that a person should not hold such office at more thantwo levels at the same time. It is also proposed to provide that a personshould not be a designated officer of any such society for more than sixconsecutive years.'
By referring to the above aims and objects behind the scheme of Section 73A of the Act, it was submitted that the provisions thereby must be given theirnatural meaning and while interpreting the same, this Court cannot add or deleteany of the words. We have no dispute with this submission. In the case of'Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra' : [2001]2SCR654 ,the Supreme Court reiterated the rules of interpretation of statutes in thefollowing words :
'It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of a statute that the words of astatute must be understood in natural, ordinary or popular sense andconstrued according to their grammatical meaning, unless suchconstruction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in thecontext or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. Thegolden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie, be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. The courts have adhered to the principle that effects should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the legislature and it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surpluses. If they can have a proper application in circumstances conceivable within the contemplation of the statute.'
21. By referring to the statement of objects and reasons of the 1996 amendment to the provisions of Section 73A, Shri Dhorde, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5, submitted that unless the area of operation of respondent No. 6, Bank extended to whole taluka or whole district, it could not be listed in any of the categories i.e. category II or Category III. As the area of operation was extended to entire District of Aurangabad only from 26th September, 2000, the Bank could, at the most fall in Category II (b) in Sub-section (2) of Section 73A of the Act, and not before that date. Even initially, unless the entire Vaijapur Taluka was the area of operation of the respondent No. 6 Bank, it could not be listed in either category II or Category III and more so when, the area of operation confined only to the municipal limits of Vaijapur, it could not be stated that the area of operation of the Bank extended to the entire Vaijapur Taluka area, urged the learned counsel. The statement of objects and reasons for the 1996 amendment in paras 2 and 5, it was stated that:--
'Section 73A(2) of the Act, does not speak of the societies having area of operation extending to a part of a district or parts of districts. It also does not speak of societies of which the area of operation extends to a part of a taluka or parts of talukas. This gives rise to various interpretations while deciding the category into which a society falls. To overcome this difficulty and to avoid scope for any ambiguity, it is proposed to amend the Categories II and III in Sub-section (2) of Section 73A.
On the basis of these statement of objects and reasons, it was contended that the legislature was mindful of the fact that unless the area of operation of a society extended to whole of the taluka, it could not be classified in any of the categories i.e. category II or III and if the area of operation extended to a part of taluka or district, such categorization could not be done and, therefore, the amendment of 1996 was brought into force. We are not impressed by these submissions though, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, in support of his arguments relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in case of 'Kisan Govindrao Walke v. State of Maharashtra' (supra). The language of the statute must be given its natural and true meaning. The Court, while interpreting the provisions of statute cannot add words therein. Category III under Sub-section (2) of Section 73A prior to its amendment in 1996, specifically provided to include the societies, the area of operation of which did not exceed to the whole of a district, but extended to one or more talukas and we have noted earlier that right from 1973, the area of operation of the respondent No. 6 Bank extended to two different talukas, i.e. Vaijapur and Gangapur. There is no difficulty in holding that prior to 30th June, 1990, the respondent No. 6 Bank fell under category III under Sub-section (2) of the Act and thereafter it fell in category II(c) under thesaid sub-section. After its amendment in 1996, till 25th September 2000, therespondent No. 6 Bank fell in category II(b) and from 26th September, 2000, itfalls in the category II(a). The facts in the 'Walke's case' cannot be comparedwith the case at hand. The area of operation of the society in that case consistedof a block only within a tahsil and the said block was converted into anindependent taluka. A new taluka was thus born and, therefore, when this courttook a view that the society did not fall in any of the 3 categories in Sub-section (2) of Section 73A. The said view is not applicable to the facts of this case at hand.
22. We shall have to read the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 73A and to compare it prior to and after the amendment of 1996 and the words thereinwill have to be given their own natural meaning. If the contentions of ShriDhorde, are accepted, the language of Category III in Sub-section (2) prior to1996 will have to be read as under :
'Societies, the area of operation of which does not extend to the whole ofa district but extend to the whole of one or more talukas.'
In short, the words 'the whole of are sought to be incorporated in thelanguage of the statute. When the legislature in its own wisdom did not do so,and the word 'the whole of preceded the word 'district' cannot be attached tothe words 'one or more talukas'.
'So far as the category II (c) is concerned, the amendment of 1976 isvery clear and any society which has its area of operation less than adistrict and authorised share capital of which is more than 10 lakhs,would certainly fall therein and as noted a little while ago, the respondentNo. 6 Bank fell in that category right from 30th June, 1990 and after the1996 amendment, it fell in category II(b). Thus from June 1990 till date,the respondent No. 6 Bank has been under category II and for sometimein sub Group (c) and sub Group (b) for the remainder period. From 26thSeptember, 2000 onwards, it came under category II(a) and thus, for lastmore than 11 years, it remained in Category II. There is no dispute thatthe respondent No. 5 has been occupying the post of Vice Chairman andChairman during the period as indicated above and the same period hasbeen more than 10 years, even, as on the date, the petitioner submittedrepresentation to the respondent No. 3. Sub-section (5) of Section 73A inno uncertain words states that no person shall be or shall continue to be adesignated officer of any society of any of the categories referred to inSub-section (2) for a period of more than 10 years in the and at the expiryof that period, any such person shall cease to be a designated officer forthat society and shall not be eligible for being re-elected or reappointedas a designated officer until a period of 1 term of the Committee haselapsed after the election of the aforesaid period of 10 years. It has beenadmitted that the period of the Managing Committee in the case of therespondent No. 6 Bank is of 5 years. No authority is required to give anydeclaration and the provisions of Sub-section (5) must operate on theirown. The respondent No. 3, when the case of Jugraj Sancheti wasreferred to him, read the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 73A intheir logical purport and advised the Bank that Shri Sancheti could not continue to be the Chairman any further. The application filed by Shri Sancheti before respondent No. 3 was contested by the presentrespondent No. 5 contending that the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 73A of the Act were operative. Having acted upon the provisionsof Sub-section (5) of the Section 73A to the case of Sancheti, it wasimpermissible for him to have a different view in the case of respondentNo. 5.
23. We, therefore, hold that the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 73A are attracted in the case of respondent No. 5 and, therefore, he has sufferedthe disqualification stated therein. The impugned order dated 3rd October, 2001passed by respondent No. 3 is required to be quashed and set aside and therespondent No. 5 cannot continue to be a designated officer i.e. President/Chairman or Vice Chairman any further.
24. In the result, we allow the petition and quash and set aside the orderdated 3rd October, 2001 passed by the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 5has suffered the disqualification as set out in Sub-section (5) of Section 73A of theAct right from the date, he has completed the period of 10 years as a designatedofficer i.e. from 17-2-1989 and he is disqualified to hold the office of Chairmanany further unless and until a period of one term of the Committee elapses afterthe completion of the period of 10 years. Rule is, therefore, made absolute interms of prayer clause B, C and AA.
We are satisfied that this is a fit case to saddle costs and, therefore, weaward the cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by respondent No. 5. Cost shall beremitted with the Registry of this Court within four weeks.
25. Shri Gaikwad, holding for Shri Dhorde, Adv., at this stage submittedan oral application for stay of this order. The application is hereby rejected.