Meghalaya High Court
Shri Watchington Sna vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 13 December, 2018
Author: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir
Bench: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir
Serial No. 04 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Regular List AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 339 of 2018
Date of order: 13.12.2018
Shri Watchington Sna Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S.M. Suna, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sen. Sr.GA (For R 1 & 2)
Mr. N. Mozika, Adv. (For R 3-11) Mr. S.A. Sheikh, Adv. (For R 12)
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
Oral:-
1. Petitioner seeks quashment of the entire election process conducted by respondent No. 2 and to cancel the result declared on 27.09.2018 with a further prayer to direct conduct of fresh election of the new members to the Board of the Jowai Co-operative Urban Bank Limited.
2. Prior to the Meghalaya Co-operative Societies Act, 2015, the business and other affairs of the Bank were governed by the Meghalaya Co- operative Societies Act (Assam Act of 1953 as adopted by Meghalaya). The pattern for electing the Board of Directors and the Chairman thereof was changed under the Meghalaya Co-operative Societies Act, 2015. The Societies Act of 2015 appears not to have been given effect by the respondent authorities till 17.09.2018.
3. The letter dated 11.09.2018 was issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies Jowai regarding the election of the Board of Directors as per the said Co-operative Societies Act, 2015 and the new Bye- laws of the Bank, as a result whereof, an emergent meeting of the Board of Directors was held under the Chairmanship of the petitioner on 17.09.2018 WP(C) No. 339 of 2018 Page 1 in which agenda item No. 2 was discussed and resolved, same is quoted hereunder:
"2. To discuss on the election of the Board of Directors.
The Board discussed the letter No.
th
JCS.71/2018/186/2114, Dated Jowai the 11 September 2018 received from the Office of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Jowai regarding the election of the Board of Directors as per the new Cooperative Societies Act and the new amended Bye-laws of the Bank. In this regard the ARCS clarified that all the members of the Board of Directors shall vacate their office before the Annual General Meeting of the Bank, since the Bye-laws of the Bank was registered under the Meghalaya Cooperative Societies Act and the Bank should have to elect the new members of the Board as per Bye-law No. 29(v)."
4. In view of the decision so taken, all the Directors, Members, Member Secretary, Chairman and Vice Chairman ceased to be so respectively. Admittedly, a fresh election was held in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Act of 2015, petitioner too has participated, 22 candidates including petitioner and respondents No. 3 to 11 contested the election, as per result the petitioner figured at Sl. No. 11, 9 Directors were elected who had secured the highest votes respectively, so clearly petitioner figuring at Sl.No. 11 as per vote share was not elected.
5. Petitioner has filed the instant petition wherein, he has alleged that he was targeted by a group of members from amongst respondents No. 3 to 11 just because they failed to convince him to declare the recruitment result to 7 number of posts i.e., the post of Bank Assistant, Bank Supervisors, Armed Guard, Peon, Cleaner, etc. Further, he has alleged that out of 324 people/persons (comprising the members and the outsiders) 308 participated in the poll, the election was conducted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. In short, according to the petitioner the election and result thereof is tainted.
WP(C) No. 339 of 2018 Page 2
6. Learned Sr. GA for respondents No. 1 and 2 questioned the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 64 of the Meghalaya Co- operative Societies Act, 2015 which provides that any dispute touching the business of the registered co-operative society except regarding disciplinary action, has to be referred to the Registrar for decision. The question whether the disputes or allegations against the election of the members/directors falls within the ambit of "touching the business" arose for consideration, learned Sr. GA for respondents No. 1 and 2 supported his contention by placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of M.S. Madhava Rao & Ors. v. D.V.K. Surya Rao, Member of the Pithapuram Co-operative Bank, Pithapuram & Ors. in Writ Petitions Nos. 632 of 1951 and 79 of 1952. Section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act as referred to in the judgment is pari materia with Section 64 of the Meghalaya Co-operative Societies Act, 2015. In the said judgment, it has been concluded as under, "that the adjudication of the Deputy Registrar setting aside the election of the petitioners and the fifth respondent in the present case was within his jurisdiction and cannot be set aside or quashed in these proceedings".
7. Confronted with the question of maintainability of the writ petition in the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that availability of the alternate efficacious remedy will not operate as a complete bar for exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, that is true but every case has to be considered in its own background. In the case in hand, there are allegations against the election process, alleged to be tainted for various reasons as projected in the writ petition, which in effect, gives rise to disputed questions of fact, when it is so, such disputed questions of fact cannot be looked into, in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, the petitioner was required to have recourse to Section 64 of the Act of 2015. Faced with the said situation, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be given liberty to WP(C) No. 339 of 2018 Page 3 have recourse to Section 64 of the Act of 2015 and other permissible remedies.
8. The petition for the stated reasons and law is not maintainable, it shall be open for the petitioner to have recourse to available alternate remedies. Disposal of this writ petition shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the proceedings as may be resorted to by him which include remedy under Section 64 of the Act of 2015.
9. Disposed of as above.
(Mohammad Yaqoob Mir) Chief Justice Meghalaya 13.12.2018 "Sylvana PS"
WP(C) No. 339 of 2018 Page 4