Santosh Yaduvanshi Vs. State of M.P. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
election - voter list - appellant wanted to become member of society - however, respondent not provided membership form to appellant - appellant made representation to society for granting membership - representation rejected on ground that election process already started - appellant being aggrieved filed petition before single bench for setting aside election procedure and rejection of voter list prepared - petition dismissed - hence, present appeal - held, appellant was not member of society - as per provisions, any person who was not member of society not entitled to challenge voters list or election procedure as said right was available to members of society only - thus, appellant had no right to challenge the election procedure and voter list - accordingly, appeal dismissed - - 8. from perusal of section 8 it would clearly appear that where in connection with the admission of a person as a member of a society any question arises whether a person is entitled to become a member then such question shall be decided by the registrar and his decision shall be final. 9. rule 14 of the 1962 rules clearly provides that no person shall be admitted as a member of a society unless he has applied in writing in the form laid down by the society or in the form specified by the registrar, if any, for membership. 11. rule 23 on which strong reliance is placed, states that every society shall keep a register of members and enter therein the names of the members as prescribed under sub-rule (1) of rule 23. rule 3 (d), which has been referred to in the arguments, provides that the list to be made available shall be published by exhibiting it at the office of the society.order1. parties are heard.the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 7-12-2006 is before this court with a submission that the learned single judge was not justified in dismissing the petition.2. the short facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that the appellant wanted to become member of jai durga prathamik upbhokta sahkari bhandar maryadit, but he was not supplied the membership form and as such he was denied membership. it is also the case of the appellant that he made a representation to the society for granting him the membership but in the meanwhile the election process started and as his name was not included in the voters list, he had to come to this court in the writ application challenging the voters list.3. learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant was denied membership and his name was not included in the voters list, he had a right to challenge the voters list, election/election process and as he comes under the clause 'any person', the writ petition at his instance was maintainable.4. on being asked that on what particular date he applied for supply of the form, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not have such instructions. on being asked that whether against non-admission as a member of the society any action was taken by the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that but for submitting his representations on 27-5-2006,14-11-2006 and 25-11-2006 he did not take any action.5. shri r.p. agrawal, as amicus curiae, submitted to the court that non-admission of any person, who is otherwise entitled to become a member of the society, would provide a cause of action in favour of such person to approach to the registrar of the societies under section 8 of m.p. co-operative societies act, 1960. his further submission is that rule 23 of the rules would not clothe each and every person to come to the court or raise an objection against voters list. he submits that the word 'any person' if would mean any tom, dick or harry who is not interested in the society, then the misinterpretation of the words 'any person' would lead to a chaotic condition.6. shri pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 supported the argument of shri r.p. agrawal and submitted that the learned single judge for justified reasons refused to interfere in the matter.7. section 8 of the act reads as under:8. power of registrar to decide certain questions.- where in connection with the formation, registration or continuance of a society or the admission of a person as a member of a society any question arises whether a person is an agriculturist or not or whether any person resides in a particular area or not or whether any person belongs to any particular class or occupation or not or such other question pertaining to the eligibility of any person to become a member of a society, such question shall be decided by the registrar and his decision shall be final.8. from perusal of section 8 it would clearly appear that where in connection with the admission of a person as a member of a society any question arises whether a person is entitled to become a member then such question shall be decided by the registrar and his decision shall be final. in the present case, if the appellant was aggrieved because of non-supply of the admission/ membership form then he was required to refer the matter to the registrar under section 8. unfortunately, the appellant did not approach the competent forum but made certain representations.9. rule 14 of the 1962 rules clearly provides that no person shall be admitted as a member of a society unless he has applied in writing in the form laid down by the society or in the form specified by the registrar, if any, for membership. such a person would have to purchase at least one share and pay the value thereof in full or in part. his application should be approved by the committee or the general body of the society and he should also fulfill other conditions laid down in the act, rules or bye-laws. if a person does not apply on the form as prescribed by the society to admit somebody as a member then such a person would not be taken on the roll of the society nor would have any right as a member. such a person has to approach the registrar under section 8 of the act.10. it is to be seen from the scheme of the act and rules that an election is to be conducted by the competent authority for constitution of the governing body from amongst members of the society. a person who is not a member cannot take part in the election nor his name can be included in the voters list.11. rule 23 on which strong reliance is placed, states that every society shall keep a register of members and enter therein the names of the members as prescribed under sub-rule (1) of rule 23. rule 3 (d), which has been referred to in the arguments, provides that the list to be made available shall be published by exhibiting it at the office of the society. it is to be noted, at this stage, that sub-rule (3) (a) of rule 23 provides that every society shall prepare a list of members, delegates and representatives of member societies as on the last day of each co-operative year. such list is to be published by exhibiting it at the office of the society.12. shri shroti, learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance upon sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 23, submitted that any person whose name is not entered in the list or is not properly entered in the list or any person whose name is entered in the list and who objects to the inclusion of his name or name of any person in the list may prefer a claim or an objection to the returning officer or person authorized by him in writing within six days from the publication of the list under the said sub-clause. his submission is that a person who does not have any interest in the society or who is not even a member of the society can always challenge voters list, and the elections if those are being conducted in an illegal manner.13. in the opinion of this court the words 'any person' are not to be appreciated or interpreted in such a wild expression. the words 'any person' would always refer to such a person who is entitled to be included in the list of members on the date when the list is to be prepared under rule 23 (3) (a) of 1962 rules. if the interpretation put froth by the leaned counsel for the appellant is accepted then in fact it would lead to a chaotic situation. any person who is not interested in the society, its governing body or its working may come to the court and challenge the voters list and the election. the scheme of the act is to create co-operative society for betterment and upkeep of the interest of the members of the society. a person who does not apply under rule 14 to become a member of the particular society cannot be allowed to challenge the elections of that society. it is also to be seen from rule 23 that society is required to maintain a register of members and enter therein the names and details of the members of the society in the manner as prescribed. every society is required to maintain the register of membership and is required to prepare a list of members, only thereafter such list is required to be published by exhibiting it at the office of the society and on the notice board of deputy registrar/assistant registrar, in-charge of the district etc. a person who is yet not a member of the society would not be entitled to challenge the voters list because such right is available only to a member of the society. the words 'any person' would not mean any person who has no interest in the society but on a harmonious construction, we must hold that any person would mean a person who is a member of the said society.14. the learned single judge, in our opinion was absolutely justified in not interfering in the matter. the appeal deserves to and is accordingly dismissed.15. consequently, the la. no. 321/2007, an application seeking stay of further election proceedings is also rejected.no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Parties are heard.

The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 7-12-2006 is before this Court with a submission that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the petition.

2. The short facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that the appellant wanted to become member of Jai Durga Prathamik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Maryadit, but he was not supplied the membership form and as such he was denied membership. It is also the case of the appellant that he made a representation to the Society for granting him the membership but in the meanwhile the election process started and as his name was not included in the voters list, he had to come to this Court in the writ application challenging the voters list.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant was denied membership and his name was not included in the voters list, he had a right to challenge the voters list, election/election process and as he comes under the clause 'any person', the writ petition at his instance was maintainable.

4. On being asked that on what particular date he applied for supply of the form, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not have such instructions. On being asked that whether against non-admission as a member of the Society any action was taken by the appellant, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that but for submitting his representations on 27-5-2006,14-11-2006 and 25-11-2006 he did not take any action.

5. Shri R.P. Agrawal, as Amicus Curiae, submitted to the Court that non-admission of any person, who is otherwise entitled to become a member of the Society, would provide a cause of action in favour of such person to approach to the Registrar of the Societies under Section 8 of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. His further submission is that Rule 23 of the Rules would not clothe each and every person to come to the Court or raise an objection against voters list. He submits that the word 'any person' if would mean any Tom, Dick or Harry who is not interested in the Society, then the misinterpretation of the words 'any person' would lead to a chaotic condition.

6. Shri Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 supported the argument of Shri R.P. Agrawal and submitted that the learned Single Judge for justified reasons refused to interfere in the matter.

7. Section 8 of the Act reads as under:

8. Power of Registrar to decide certain questions.- Where in connection with the formation, registration or continuance of a society or the admission of a person as a member of a society any question arises whether a person is an agriculturist or not or whether any person resides in a particular area or not or whether any person belongs to any particular class or occupation or not or such other question pertaining to the eligibility of any person to become a member of a society, such question shall be decided by the Registrar and his decision shall be final.

8. From perusal of Section 8 it would clearly appear that where in connection with the admission of a person as a member of a society any question arises whether a person is entitled to become a member then such question shall be decided by the Registrar and his decision shall be final. In the present case, if the appellant was aggrieved because of non-supply of the admission/ membership form then he was required to refer the matter to the Registrar under Section 8. Unfortunately, the appellant did not approach the competent forum but made certain representations.

9. Rule 14 of the 1962 Rules clearly provides that no person shall be admitted as a member of a society unless he has applied in writing in the form laid down by the society or in the form specified by the Registrar, if any, for membership. Such a person would have to purchase at least one share and pay the value thereof in full or in part. His application should be approved by the committee or the General Body of the Society and he should also fulfill other conditions laid down in the Act, Rules or bye-laws. If a person does not apply on the form as prescribed by the society to admit somebody as a member then such a person would not be taken on the roll of the society nor would have any right as a member. Such a person has to approach the Registrar under Section 8 of the Act.

10. It is to be seen from the scheme of the Act and Rules that an election is to be conducted by the Competent Authority for constitution of the Governing Body from amongst members of the society. A person who is not a member cannot take part in the election nor his name can be included in the voters list.

11. Rule 23 on which strong reliance is placed, states that every society shall keep a register of members and enter therein the names of the members as prescribed under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 23. Rule 3 (d), which has been referred to in the arguments, provides that the list to be made available shall be published by exhibiting it at the office of the society. It is to be noted, at this stage, that Sub-rule (3) (a) of Rule 23 provides that every society shall prepare a list of members, delegates and representatives of member societies as on the last day of each co-operative year. Such list is to be published by exhibiting it at the office of the society.

12. Shri Shroti, learned Counsel for the appellant, placing reliance upon Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 23, submitted that any person whose name is not entered in the list or is not properly entered in the list or any person whose name is entered in the list and who objects to the inclusion of his name or name of any person in the list may prefer a claim or an objection to the Returning Officer or person authorized by him in writing within six days from the publication of the list under the said sub-clause. His submission is that a person who does not have any interest in the society or who is not even a member of the society can always challenge voters list, and the elections if those are being conducted in an illegal manner.

13. In the opinion of this Court the words 'any person' are not to be appreciated or interpreted in such a wild expression. The words 'any person' would always refer to such a person who is entitled to be included in the list of members on the date when the list is to be prepared under Rule 23 (3) (a) of 1962 Rules. If the interpretation put froth by the leaned Counsel for the appellant is accepted then in fact it would lead to a chaotic situation. Any person who is not interested in the society, its Governing Body or its working may come to the Court and challenge the voters list and the election. The scheme of the Act is to create co-operative society for betterment and upkeep of the interest of the members of the society. A person who does not apply under Rule 14 to become a member of the particular society cannot be allowed to challenge the elections of that society. It is also to be seen from Rule 23 that society is required to maintain a register of members and enter therein the names and details of the members of the society in the manner as prescribed. Every society is required to maintain the register of membership and is required to prepare a list of members, only thereafter such list is required to be published by exhibiting it at the office of the society and on the notice board of Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar, in-charge of the district etc. A person who is yet not a member of the society would not be entitled to challenge the voters list because such right is available only to a member of the society. The words 'any person' would not mean any person who has no interest in the society but on a harmonious construction, we must hold that any person would mean a person who is a member of the said society.

14. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion was absolutely justified in not interfering in the matter. The appeal deserves to and is accordingly dismissed.

15. Consequently, the LA. No. 321/2007, an application seeking stay of further election proceedings is also rejected.

No costs.