Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10392 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 26017 Of 2013)

RAJKOT DISTT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.  ………APPELLANT

Vs.

  STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.         ………RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10393-10394 OF 2014  (Arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 13201-13202 Of 2012),

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10395-10398 OF 2014  (Arising out of SLP (C)Nos.12219-12222 Of 2012),

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10399 OF 2014  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29726 Of 2013),

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10400 OF 2014  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27573 Of 2013),

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10401 OF 2014  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29727 Of 2013)

And

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10402 OF 2014  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29728 Of 2013

J U D G M E N T

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

   The applications for impleadment filed in the  

SLP(C) Nos. 29726 of 2013, 29727 of 2013 and 29728 of

Page 2

2

2013 are allowed. Leave granted in all the special  

leave petitions.

2. The  appellants  before  this  Court  have  filed  

these  appeals  questioning  the  correctness  of  the  

impugned orders dated 15.11.2011, 30.1.2012 (passed  

by the Division Bench) and  common impugned order  

dated 04.07.2013 (passed by the full Bench) of the  

High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.  

3. Since all the appeals are identical in nature,  

we would refer to the facts of the case arising out  

of Civil Appeal @  SLP(C) NO. 26017 of 2013  for the  

sake of convenience and brevity and for examining the  

rival legal contentions urged in these appeals.

4. The  State  of  Gujarat  enacted  and  put  on  the  

statute book, Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act of  

1961 (in short “the Act”) in order to consolidate  

and  amend  the  laws  relating  to  the  cooperative  

societies in the State of Gujarat. Thereafter, the  

Act was amended by the Act of 1982. Initially, as  

per the Act of 1961, the Managing Committee of the  

Co-operative  Society  was  to  be  constituted  in  

accordance with the Act, Rules and bye-laws. By the

Page 3

3

Act of 1982, the proviso was inserted by way of an  

amendment to the effect that so far as the committee  

of  a  society  falling  in  the  category  of  Section  

74C(1) of the Act is concerned, the rotation for  

retirement,  if  provided  by  the  bye-laws  of  a  

particular  number  of  members  of  the  Managing  

Committee shall cease to remain in force.   

5. Further, as per the Act of 1982, Section 74C  

together with the other provisions of the amending  

Act was brought on the statute book, which provided  

that the election of the members of the  Managing  

Committee/Board  and  the  office  bearers  on  the  

committees  of  such  specified  societies  shall  be  

conducted  in  the  manner  laid  down  by  or  under  

Chapter  XI-A  of  the  Act,  which  was  also  

simultaneously inserted by way of amendment Act of  

1982, for conducting elections to the committees and  

office  bearers  of  certain  societies  which  are  so  

specified under Section 74C(1) of the Act. As per  

the scheme of the said chapter, the election of such  

specified societies is required to be held on such  

date or dates as the Collector may fix under his

Page 4

4

control.  Prior to the amendment, the election of  

the managing committee was to be conducted by the  

society itself as per its registered bye-laws. So  

far as the societies included as specified societies  

under Section 74C(1)  of the Act are concerned, a  

separate mode of conducting election was provided  

and the power of conducting such election was given  

to the Collector notwithstanding anything contained  

in the bye-laws of such societies.  The said aspect  

was made clear under the provisions of Section 74(C)  

(2) and (3) of the Act which were inserted by way of  

amending  Act  of  1982.   Chapter  XI-A  of  the  Act  

provides for separate mode for deciding the election  

dispute by Election Tribunal. Section 145(U) of the  

Act provided the State Government with rule making  

power  and  to  regulate  all  or  any  of  the  other  

matters relating to the various stages of elections  

including preparation of the list of voters.   

6. In  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  upon  the  

State Government under Section 168 read with Sections  

145(A), 145(U) and 145(Y), the State Government of  

Gujarat  framed  the  Gujarat  Specified  Co-operative

Page 5

5

Societies Election to Committee Rules of 1982 (in  

short “the Rules”). These Rules provide for various  

stages of election from the preparation of the voters  

list  till  the  result  is  declared  and  further  

consequential steps to be taken in the process.  In  

the year 1987, Rules 3-A and 3-B were inserted in the  

Rules of 1982 by the Rule Making     Authority which  

provided for delimitation of the constituencies in  

the respective society/societies, for the purpose of  

conducting election of the Managing Committee Members  

and a separate procedure was provided for election of  

members reserved in sub- section (1) of Section 74B  

of the Act.

7. The  constitutional  validity  of  the  amended  

provisions of the Act of 1982 was challenged before  

the High Court in the case of  Amreli District Co-

operative Sale and Purchase Union Ltd.  v. State of  

Gujarat1.  The  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  

declared Sections 17(A), 24, 51(2), 69 and also the  

proviso  to  Section  74  as  ultra  vires the  

Constitution.  However,  the  provisions  of  Sections  

74A, 74B, 74C, 74D, 76A, 76B, 80(A) and 80(2) were  

1  (1984) 2 GLR 1244

Page 6

6

upheld. The said matters were carried before this  

Court,  but  subsequently  came  to  be  withdrawn.  

Therefore, the decision of the Gujarat High Court in  

the  aforesaid  case  became  final  and  has  been  

operating since.

8. Subsequently,  certain  provisions  were  deleted  

but Section 74C and other provisions in relation to  

the conduct of election, including Chapter XI A and  

the Rules, remained in the statute book.  Therefore,  

legal position remained as per the original Act even  

after the Amendment Act of 1982. The election of the  

Managing Committee members of a society other than  

the specified societies was required to be held as  

per the bye laws of such societies. Whereas, so far  

as the specified societies covered by Section 74C(1)  

of the Act are concerned, the election was required  

to be held as per Chapter XI A read with the Rules of  

1982.

9. A legal question for interpretation to Rule 3-A  

(8)  and  also  the  validity  of  bye-laws  clause  No.  

35(1)(A)  of  Sabarkantha  Milk  Producers  Union  Ltd.  

arose before the High Court in the case of Antakampa

Page 7

7

Milk  Producers  Co-operative  Society  Limited  v.  

Sabarkantha Milk Producers Union Ltd.2. The learned  

Single Judge of the High Court in the said case held  

that Section 74C sub Section (3) of the Act, has an  

overriding  effect  on  any  other  bye-laws  of  such  

society. It was also found that as per Rule 3-A (8),  

the number of constituencies have to be equal to the  

total number of seats excluding two reserved seats as  

provided under Section 74B of the Act. The learned  

Single Judge in the said case found that the bye law  

No. 35(1)(A), provided seats for more than one person  

for each constituency and therefore, the bye laws  

were not in conformity with Rule 3-A (8) of the Rules  

and found that the bye-laws can operate to the extent  

of 7 representatives to be elected from 7 separate  

constituencies of a Specified Cooperative Society and  

therefore, the High Court has held the Rule 3-A(8) of  

the Rules as valid to that extent only.   

10. In  the  meanwhile,  the  Division  Bench  of  the  

Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Sadwadar Seva  

Sahkari Mandali Ltd. & Ors.  v. State of Gujarat3,  

2  (2004)1 GLR 310 3  (2010) 3 GLR 2154

Page 8

8

went into the case once again with regard to the  

holding of the election to the Managing Committee of  

the  Bank  in  accordance  with  Rule  3-A  (8)  of  the  

Rules.  The Division Bench found that when Rule 3-A  

(8) and Rule 43 are examined in juxtaposition, it has  

held that the object and intendment of the said Rules  

and  the  field  of  the  operation  of  the  said  two  

provisions are different inasmuch as the former deals  

with  “constituencies”  bifurcated  on  the  

“territorial/zone  basis”.   The  Division  Bench  did  

consider the view taken by the learned Single Judge  

of Gujarat High Court in the case of Antakampa Milk  

Producers  Co-operative  Society  Limited (supra)  and  

found that in the said case, the constituencies were  

bifurcated zone or territory wise.  

11. Again  the  question  for  consideration  of  the  

provisions of Rule 3-A (8) read with Section 74C of  

the Act arose in the case of Khanodar Milk Producers  

Co-operative Societies Ltd. and Others  v. State of  

Gujarat4. The second Division Bench of the High Court  

found  that  the  bye  law  providing  more  than  one  

representative  to  be  elected  in  more  than  one  4  (2012)1 GLH 245

Page 9

9

constituency would be in contravention of Rule 3-A  

(8) and it is held that, in the case of  Sadvadar  

Sahkari  (supra),  the  members  of  the  society  were  

comprised of various classes of societies, whereas in  

the  case  of  Antakampa  Milk  Producers  Cooperative  

Society  Ltd.,  the  members  constituted  homogeneous  

group  and  not  heterogeneous  group.  Therefore,  

adopting  the  decision  of  the  case  Antakampa  Milk  

Producers  Cooperative  Society  Ltd.,  the  Division  

Bench set aside the bye laws clause No. 35 (1) of the  

said Society which provides for voting right for more  

than one seat in one constituency.

12. Further, the constitutional validity of Rule 3-A  

(8) of the Rules was again challenged before the High  

Court  of  Gujarat,  in  the  case  of  Banaskantha  

District  Cooperative  Milk  Producers  Union  Ltd.  v.  

State of Gujarat5, wherein the Division Bench of the  

High Court held that if any of the Rules are lawfully  

framed  under  the  provisions  of  the  Act  and  

restrictions were imposed in relation to the subject  

matter of any of the clauses of the registered bye  

laws  of  the  Society,  such  restrictions  must  be  5  (2012) 2 GLR 1522

Page 10

10

adhered to by it and any such clause in the bye-laws  

which is in violation of the restriction imposed by  

the Rules should be deleted. It was further held that  

the  State  Government  while  framing  the  impugned  

provisions of the Rules has not deviated from the  

principles mentioned under Section 74C (3) of the  

Act, but it has only created a position by making  

provisions  of  the  election  of  members  from  the  

General Body. The Division Bench of the High Court  

held that Rule 3-A (8) of the Rules is neither in  

conflict with any of the provisions of the Act nor  

was it held to be bad in law for want of Authority of  

the delegated legislation. Therefore, Rule 3-A(8) of  

the Rules was held to be legal and valid by the High  

Court by giving its reasons.

13. Similar  questions  regarding  the  legality  and  

validity of Rule 3-A(8) of the Rules arose when the  

present group of appeals were listed before the High  

Court.  The  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  

formulated the following legal issues and referred  

the same to the full Bench:    

(1) Whether Rule 3-A of the Rules introduced by

Page 11

11

the  amendment  dated  10.08.1987  could  be  

applied  to  the  societies  bye-laws  which  

provide for a single constituency?

(2) Whether the scheme of the Rules permit the  

specified  societies  having  a  single  

constituency,  more  than  one  seat  for  one  

constituency  and  whether  members  of  such  

society can legally be permitted to vote for  

more than one seat?

(3) Whether Collector has jurisdiction to make  

an  order  for  delimitation  of  the  

constituencies, in absence of any proceeding  

undertaken in accordance with Section 14 of  

the Act?

(4) Whether delimitation of the constituencies  

under  Rule  3-A  of  the  Rules  can  only  be  

territory-wise  and/or  whether  delimitation  

of  the  constituencies  can  be  based  upon  

objects  and  activities  of  the  member  

societies or classes of individual members?

After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the

Page 12

12

full  Bench  of  the  High  Court  answered  the  legal  

questions against the appellant-societies by passing  

the impugned judgment and orders which are challenged  

in these appeals before this Court urging various  

legal grounds.

14. We have heard the learned counsel on both the  

sides. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel  

for  the  appellants  that  the  findings  and  reasons  

recorded in the impugned judgment while answering the  

questions of law on the points referred to the Full  

Bench are not only erroneous but also suffers from  

error in law. Reliance was placed by them upon the  

judgment of this Court in the case of  Ziley Singh  

v. Registrar Cane Cooperative Societies Lucknow6. It  

is contented that the Rule 3-A (8) of the Rules is  

contrary to the bye-laws of the appellant-Societies  

and  the  statutory  provisions  of  the  Act.  The  Act  

provides  for  amendments  of  the  bye  laws  without  

allowing the societies to get their bye laws amended  

as per the procedure laid under the provisions of the  

Act and without laying down certain guidelines in the  

Rules for the amendment of the relevant clauses of  6  (1972) 1 SCC 719

Page 13

13

the registered bye-laws of the appellant-Societies.  

Rule 3-A (8) takes away the vested rights conferred  

upon the members of the society.  The conferment of  

power  upon  the  Collector  for  carving  out  

delimitations  of  a  Specified  Co-operative  

Society/Societies is contrary to the provisions of  

the  Act  and  Rules  and  asking  the  Chief  Executive  

Officer  to  prepare  the  draft  constituencies  by  

dividing the area of societies into constituencies  

would amount to taking away the right of its members  

to  exercise  their  vote  in  favour  of  all  the  

candidates  who  contest  from  the  constituencies.  

Therefore, the interpretation given to Section 3-A  

(8) of the Rules and upholding the constitutional  

validity in conferring such power upon the Collector  

to demark the constituencies of appellant societies  

infringes the rights of the members of the societies.  

Hence, it is contended that the impugned judgment is  

liable to be set aside.    

15.  The  State  Government  has  filed  its  counter  

affidavit justifying the impugned judgment contending  

that the findings and reasons recorded by the full

Page 14

14

Bench  of  the  Gujarat  High  Court  by  answering  the  

questions referred to it are in accordance with law  

and  the  same  are  on  proper  interpretation  of  the  

relevant Rules 3-A (8) and (9) and Rule 43 of the  

Rules which are in conformity with Chapter XI-A of  

the Act.    

16. On a careful examination of Rule 3-A (8) of the  

Rules by us, it is made clear that the said provision  

is aimed at geographical i.e. territory or zone wise  

bifurcation or division.  A salient feature of the  

Rule 3-A is the delimitation of the constituencies  

which includes all specified cooperative societies.  

Once the area of operation of any society is more  

than one village, Sub rule (8) would come into play  

and the requirement of the number of constituencies  

would  be  equal  to  the  total  number  of  seats,  

excluding two seats reserved for the categories as  

provided under section 74 B of the Act.

17. Further, the language of sub rule (9) of Rule 3-

A, makes it clear that the Rule Making Authority has  

graced the Collector with the power to delimit the  

constituency/constituencies prior to the publication

Page 15

15

of  the  voters  list.  The  delimitation  of  the  

constituency/constituencies  should  be  prior  to  the  

preparation of the voters’ list and/or in any case  

simultaneous with the preparation of voters’ list but  

the voters list has to be as per the delimitation of  

the constituencies.  The same is the case when the  

delimitation of the constituency is required to be  

made by the Collector prior to the publication of the  

list of voters.

18. Thus, when sub-rule (8) is read along with sub-

rule (9) of Rule 3-A, where the society has the area  

of operation exceeding one village, even if the bye  

laws  provide  for  single  constituency,  the  seats  

provided  by the  bye laws  has to  be equal  to the  

number of constituency/constituencies and therefore,  

for  each  seat,  a  separate  constituency  would  be  

required to be delimited and if not so delimited by  

the society, of its own, it would be required for the  

Collector to exercise his power under sub rule (9) of  

Rule 3-A of the Rules for the delimitation of the  

constituency in accordance with the mandate of sub  

rule (8) of Rule 3-A and thereafter, the process for

Page 16

16

publication of the voters’ list is to be given effect  

to.

19. The power conferred with the Collector for the  

delimitation of the constituency under sub rule (9)  

is independent and separate and only applicable in  

the case when the election of the members of any  

Management  Committee  of  specified  society  is  

scheduled to be held. Further, as specified in the  

sub  rule (9)  of Rule  3-A, such  powers are  to be  

exercised by the Collector, notwithstanding anything  

contained  in  the  bye  laws  of  such  society.  The  

Collector has to exercise the power for delimitation  

of the constituencies prior to the publication of the  

list of voters. Further, as rightly stated by the  

High  Court  in  the  impugned  judgment  that  when  a  

specific power is conferred in a specific contingency  

to a different authority, such power has to be read  

in addition to the general power for the amendment in  

the bye-laws. Thus, the bye laws of any society have  

to be in conformity with the provisions of the Act  

and the Rules.

20. It is obligatory on the part of any specified

Page 17

17

society  to  bring  about  the  amendment  in  its  

registered bye-laws in conformity with        the  

provisions of the Rules and more        particularly  

Rule 3-A (8) and (9). But if the society/societies  

have not amended their bye laws, the same has to be  

in conformity with the said Rules by getting suitably  

amended;  the  effect  of  the  Rule  would  not  stand  

nullified or inoperable. For this purpose sub rule  

(9) gives the power to the Collector to delimit the  

constituency/constituencies of a society. Thus, once  

the area of operation of any society exceeds more  

than one village as per sub rule (8), the number of  

constituencies is required to be bifurcated by the  

Collector in exercise of his power, so as to make it  

equal  to  the  total  number  of  seats  to  see  that  

effective representation is given to the members of  

the society for giving fair representation to its  

members  to  elect  their  true  representatives  to  

participate in the affairs of the Society as part of  

the Managing Committee Members, as the society must  

be represented by its elected representatives in a  

democratic process to effectively represent in the

Page 18

18

Managing  Committee  which  is  an  indispensible  

parameter for the democratic institutions to achieve  

the laudable object of Co-operative movement in the  

country, which is the constitutional philosophy as  

enshrined in Chapter XI A of the Constitution, which  

has  been  inserted   by  way  of  constitutional  

amendment.

21. Thus,  the  bye  laws  of  any  specified  society  

under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies  

Act cannot be permitted to prevail over the statutory  

Rule 3-A (8) & (9) of the Rules. The moment the area  

of operation of any specified society exceeds one  

village,  sub  rule  (8)  would  come  into  play,  

irrespective of the fact that whether members of such  

society constitute homogenous group or heterogeneous  

group.  

22. Further, the elections to either the Managing  

Committee or Board must be held democratically by  

giving representation to all its members, as stated  

in the preamble of our Constitution, which is held to  

be  the  basic  feature  of  the  Constitution  by  the  

constitutional Bench of this Court in the cases of

Page 19

19

Kesavananda  Bharati  Sripadagalvaru  v.  State  of  

Kerala7 and Kuldip Nayar  v. Union of India8. Under  

Article 13 (2) of the Constitution of India, Rules  

are also regarded as laws. However, the Rules and  

laws  framed  by  the  State  Legislatures  and  the  

appropriate government cannot run parallel with the  

principles  of  the  Constitution  and  the  statutory  

objects of the Co-operative Societies Act cannot be  

disregard as it would defeat the purpose of Section  

243ZK of the Constitution of India (Ninety-Seventh  

Amendment)  Act  2011,  inserted  as  per  the  97th  

Constitutional Amendment, which provides for election  

of the members of the Managing Committee or Board. If  

the rules provide  

that not more than 7 representatives can be elected  

from a specified Co-operative Society to the Board or  

Management  Committee,  then  it  is  the  duty  of  the  

societies  to  adhere  to  it  and  not  exceed  the  

specified  number.  Thus,  the  bye  laws  of  a  Co-

operative  Society,  in  order  to  achieve  the  

constitutional object, must be brought at par with  

7   (1973) 4 SCC 225 8  (2006)7 SCC 1

Page 20

20

the laws and statutory provisions of the Societies  

Act. They cannot override the provisions of State or  

Central laws. In Kuldip Nayar’s  case (supra), this  

Court after referring to various Constitutional Bench  

judgments and other judgments of this Court for the  

purpose  of  interpretation  made  by  this  Court  in  

relation  to  phrases  used  in  the  Preamble  of  the  

Constitution of India such as “sovereign democratic  

republic” and “Parliamentary democracy” as the basic  

feature of the Constitution of India, held as under:-  

“101. In the same case (Indira Nehru Gandhi  case,  reported  in  1975  Supp  SCC  1),  Chandrachud, J. in para 691 of his separate  judgment ruled as under: (SCC pp. 261-62)

“Ordinary  laws  have  to  answer  two  tests for their validity: (1) The law  must  be  within  the  legislative  competence  of  the  legislature  as  defined and specified in Chapter I,  Part XI of the Constitution, and (2)  it  must  not  offend  against  the  provisions of Articles 13(1) and (2)  of  the  Constitution.  ‘Basic  structure’, by the majority judgment,  is  not  a  part  of  the  fundamental  rights nor indeed a provision of the  Constitution.  The  theory  of  basic  structure  is  woven  out  of  the  conspectus  of  the  Constitution  and  the amending power is subjected to it  because  it  is  a  constituent  power.  ‘The power to amend the fundamental  instrument cannot carry with it the

Page 21

21

power  to  destroy  its  essential  features’—this, in brief, is the arch  of the theory of basic structure. It  is  wholly  out  of  place  in  matters  relating to the validity of ordinary  laws made under the Constitution.”

  XXX XXX XXX

142.  Article 80(4) prescribes the manner  of  voting  and  election  of  the  representatives of States for the Council  of States in the following terms:

“80. (4)  The representatives of each  State in the Council of States shall  be elected by the elected Members of  the Legislative Assembly of the State  in  accordance  with  the  system  of  proportional  representation  by  means  of the single transferable vote.”

XXX XXX XXX

336. In the words of Jaganmohan Reddy, J. (Kesavananda Bharati case reported in (1973)  4  SCC  225)  in  his  separate  judgment,  the  1“elements  of  the  basic  structure  are  indicated in the Preamble and translated in  the various provisions of the Constitution”  and  the  “edifice  of  our  Constitution  is  built  upon  and  stands  on  several  props”  which,  if  removed  would  result  in  the  Constitution  collapsing  and  which  include  the  principles  of  “sovereign  democratic  republic”  and  “parliamentary  democracy”,  a  polity which is “based on a representative  system in which people holding opposing view  to one another can be candidates and invite  the  electorate  to  vote  for  them”  (SCC  p.  638, para 1159).

341. Some of the important holdings were  set down in para 92 of the aforementioned  (Mohinder  Singh  Gill  v.  Chief  Election

Page 22

22

Commr.  reported  in  (1978)  1  SCC  405)  judgment  “for  convenience”  and  to  “synopsise the formulations”. The holdings  included the following: (SCC p. 452)

“92.  (2)(a)  The  Constitution  contemplates  a   free  and  fair

election and  vests  comprehensive  responsibilities of superintendence,  direction and control of the conduct  of  elections  in  the  Election  Commission.  This  responsibility  may  cover powers, duties and functions of  many sorts, administrative or other,  depending on the circumstances. (b) Two limitations at least are laid  on  its  plenary  character  in  the  exercise  thereof.  Firstly,  when  Parliament or any State Legislature  has made valid law relating to or in  connection  with  elections,  the  Commission, shall act in conformity  with,  not  in  violation  of,  such  provisions but  where  such  law  is  silent Article 324 is a reservoir of  power to act for the avowed purpose  of,  not  divorced  from,  pushing  forward  a  free  and  fair  election  with  expedition.  Secondly,  the  Commission  shall  be  responsible  to  the rule of law, act bona fide and be  amenable  to  the  norms  of  natural  justice  insofar  as  conformance  to  such  canons  can  reasonably  and  realistically  be required  of it  as  fairplay-in-action  in  a  most  important area of the constitutional  order viz. elections. Fairness does  import an obligation to see that no  wrongdoer candidate benefits by his  own wrong. To put the matter beyond  doubt, natural justice enlivens and  applies to the specific case of order

Page 23

23

for  total re-poll,  although not  in  full  panoply  but  in  flexible  practicability. Whether it has been  complied with is left open for the  Tribunal’s adjudication.”

343. The case  Kihoto Hollohan v.  Zachillhu  (reported  in  (1992  Supp  (2)  SCC  651) also  resulted in similar views being reiterated by  this Court in the following words: (SCC p.  741, para 179)

“179. Democracy is a part of the  basic  structure  of  our  Constitution; and rule of law, and  free and fair elections are basic  features of democracy  .   One of the  postulates  of  free  and  fair  elections  is  provision  for  resolution of election disputes as  also  adjudication  of  disputes  relating  to  subsequent  disqualifications by an independent  authority.”

     (emphasis laid by this Court)

In Rameshwar Prasad (VI)  v. Union of India9,  this  

Court has held as under:-

“229.  Lord  Greene  said  in  1948  in  the  famous   Wednesbury case   (reported in (1948)    1  KB  223)   that  when  a  statute  gave    discretion to an administrator to take a  decision,  the  scope  of  judicial  review  would  remain  limited.  He  said  that  interference  was  not  permissible  unless  one  or  the  other  of  the  following  conditions was satisfied, namely the order  was contrary to law, or relevant factors  were not considered, or irrelevant factors  were considered; or the decision was one  

9  (2006) 2 SCC 1

Page 24

24

which  no  reasonable  person  could  have  taken…….  257.  Therefore,  the  well-recognised  position  in  law  is  that  purity  in  the  electoral process and the conduct of the  elected representatives cannot be isolated  from  the  constitutional  requirements.  “Democracy” and “free and fair election”  are inseparable twins. There is almost an  inseverable  umbilical  cord  joining  them.  In  a  democracy  the  little  man—voter  has  overwhelming  importance  and  cannot  be  hijacked from the course of free and fair  elections……”.  

      (emphasis laid by this Court)

In Mohinder Singh Gill  v. Chief Election Commr.10,  

this Court has held as under:-  

“2. Every  significant  case  has  an  unwritten  legend  and  indelible  lesson.  This appeal is no exception, whatever its  formal result. The message, as we will see  at the end of the decision, relates to the  pervasive  philosophy  of  democratic  elections  which  Sir  Winston  Churchill  vivified in matchless, words:

“At the bottom of all tributes  paid to democracy is the little  man,  walking  into  a  little  booth,  with  a  little  pencil,  making  a  little  cross  on  a  little bit of paper — no amount  of  rhetoric  or  voluminous  discussion can possibly diminish  the  overwhelming  importance  of  the point.”

23. Democracy is government by the people.  It is a continual participative operation,  not a cataclysmic, periodic exercise. The  

10  (1978) 1 SCC 405

Page 25

25

little man, in his multitude, marking his  vote at the poll does a social audit of  his  Parliament  plus  political  choice  of  this  proxy.  Although  the  full  flower  of  participative  Government  rarely  blossoms,  the  minimum  credential  of  popular  Government is appeal to the people after  every term for a renewal of confidence. So  we  have  adult  franchise  and  general  elections  as  constitutional  compulsions.  “The right of election is the very essence  of  the  constitution”  (Junius).  It  needs  little argument to hold that the heart of  the Parliamentary system is free and fair  elections  periodically  held,  based  on  adult  franchise,  although  social  and  economic democracy may demand much more. 46. It is an interesting sidelight that in  America  it  has  been  held  to  be  but  fundamental fairness that the right to an  administrative  hearing  is  given.  Natural  justice  is  being  given  access  to  the  United Nations. It is notable that Mathew,  J. observed in Indira Gandhi (p. 513, see  p.  128,  para  303)(reported  in  1975  Supp  SCC 1):

“If  the  amending  body  really  exercised  judicial  power,  that  power was exercised in violation  of  the  principles  of  natural  justice of  audi alteram partem.  Even if a power is given to a  body without specifying that the  rules of natural justice should  be  observed  in  exercising  it,  the  nature  of  the  power  would  call for its observance…………”

      (emphasis laid by this Court)

In view of the law laid down by this Court in the

Page 26

26

aforesaid cases, we have to hold that the sub rules  

(8) & (9) of Rule 3-A are applicable to the appellant  

society/Societies as the area of operation is more  

than one village and therefore the orders passed by  

the  Collector  for  the  delimitation  of  the  

constituency/constituencies  cannot  be  said  to  be  

illegal.  Further,  we  hold  that  there  will  be  no  

proper  representation  of  the  voters  to  their  

respective  specified  societies  for  electing  

representatives of their area which would materially  

affect the result of the election and the impugned  

provisions and Rules are legally justifiable.

For the reasons stated supra, no relief can be  

granted  in  favour  of  the  appellant-societies  by  

setting  aside  the  election  notification  and  the  

prayer for setting aside the impugned judgement and  

orders.  Hence, they deserve to be dismissed. The  

respondents are directed to hold the election to the  

specified societies as per sub rule (8) and (9) of  

Rule 3-A of the Rules as are applicable to them under  

the  Gujarat  Co-operative  Societies  Act  after  the  

delimitation  of  the  constituency/constituencies  of

Page 27

27

such societies are made by the Collector as stated  

under sub-rule (9) of Rule 3-A of the Rules.  

23. For the reasons stated supra, we do not find any  

reasons  whatsoever  to  interfere  with  the  impugned  

judgment and orders of the High Court. It is needless  

to make observation that the State government and its  

officers could not give effect to the provisions of  

the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules for some  

time on account of which some of the societies have  

challenged the impugned provisions and Rules before  

the High Court, even after litigation was concluded  

by the Division Bench at one stage, the State and its  

officers have not implemented the impugned provisions  

and Rules without any valid reasons. The members of  

the specified societies in the State have a right to  

elect their true representatives to represent them as  

Managing Committee or Board members of the District  

Co-operative  Societies  and  other  allied  societies  

after  de-limitation  of  the  constituency/  

constituencies and therefore, we direct them to see  

that  the  impugned  provisions  and  Rules  must  be  

implemented  forthwith  without  further  delay  and

Page 28

28

submit compliance report within 8 weeks from the date  

of report of the copy of this order.

24. The appeals are dismissed. No Costs.

 ……………………………………………………………J.                          [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

            ……………………………………………………………J.       [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]

New Delhi, November 19, 2014

Page 29

29

ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment      COURT NO.11               SECTION IX

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No(s).  26017/2013

RAJKOT DISTT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD                  Petitioner(s)

                               VERSUS

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS                           Respondent(s) WITH C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 13201-13202/2012 C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 12219-12222/2012 C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 29726/2013 C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 27573/2013 C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 29727/2013 C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 29728/2013   Date : 19/11/2014 These appeals was called on for JUDGMENT today.

For Petitioner(s)                      Mr. Mohit D. Ram,Adv.                                            M/s. Khaitan & Co.  

                    Mr. Devendra Singh,Adv.                      Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv.                      Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv.

For Respondent(s)  Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.                      Ms. Pratibha Jain,Adv.                                            Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv.                      Mr. Vikash Singh,Adv.           

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  V.Gopala  Gowda  pronounced  the  

judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble  

Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.

Leave granted.

The  appeals  are  dismissed  in  terms  of  the  signed  

judgment.  

   (VINOD KUMAR)    (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)