Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The second decision on which reliance has been placed by the respondents is also a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of the election to the Managing Committee of the Osmanabad District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., viz, the decision of Pendse and Sugla, JJ. in Writ Petition Nos 1823, 1825 and 1907 of 1988 (for short, the 'Osmanabad Bank Election' case) decided on 28th April, 1988. This was a case where the names of the petitioners were deleted from the final list of voters published in respect of the election to the Managing Committee of the Osmanabad District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. After the petition was filed at the Aurangabad Bench of this Court, certain directions were issued to the Collector to submit the election programme and the programme was announced. The petitioners approached this Court complaining that the Collector was in error in deleting their names from the final list of voters by the order dated 25th March, 1988. An objection was raised by the respondents that the petition would not be maintainable on the ground that the 1960, Act and the 1971 Rules provide for filing of an election petition after the elections are concluded and, therefore, this Court need not exercise its powers and hold up the election process which was set in motion. The relevant portion of the judgment dealing with this preliminary objection raised by the respondents can be reproduced below:--

The Division Bench in Osmanabad Bank Election case (1989 CTJ 45) (Bom) thereafter, referred to two Supreme Court decisions viz.--

(i) Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Nassan Uzzaman, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1233; and

(ii)S. T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, .

Relying upon the said decisions the learned Judges in Osmanabad Bank Election case upheld the preliminary objection and concluded as under: --

"In view of these decisions, it is obvious that even assuming that the grievance of Dr. Naik is right, it is not permissible for this Court to disturb the election programme by entertaining this petition. In our judgment, the petitioner may seek relief in Election Petition, if so advised."

13. As far as the other Division Bench decision of Pendse and Sugla, JJ., in the Osmanabad Bank Election case (1989 CTJ 45) (Bom) is concerned, the criticism of the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners is that the dispute in that case had arisen at the stage of declaration of the election programme which had commenced under Rule 16 of the 1971 Rules on 28-03-1988 on which day itself the petitioners had complained that the Collector was in error in deleting their names from the final list of voters by the order passed on 25-3-1988. It was, therefore, contended before me that, inasmuch as, in the present case, the stage of declaration of the election programme under Rule 16 of the 1971 Rules is not yet reached, it cannot be said that the process of election has been set in motion. In my view, it is not possible to read the decision of the learned Judges in the Osmanabad Bank Election case in the manner in which Shri Singhvi and Shri B. N, Naik want me to read. The observations of Pendse and Sugla, JJ., which I have reproduced above in Para 11 are very clear to the effect that the election process commenced with the preparation of the provisional list of voters and inviting the claims and objections by the Collector to such a list.

19. Relying upon the two Division Bench decisions, viz. the decision of Vimadatal and Sapre, JJ., in Ganesh Karkhana election case and the decision of Pendse & Sugla, JJ., in Osmanabad Bank election case (1989 CTJ 45) (Bom), Shri Sawant and Dr. Naik invited my attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderjas K. Bhatija v. Collector of Thane, , and particularly, to the caution sounded in Para 17 of the Judgment at pages 266, 267 which read as under:

"It would be difficult for us to appreciate the judgment of the High Court. One must remember that pursuit of the law, however, glamorous it is, has its own limitation on the Bench. In a multi-judge, Court, the Judges are bound by precedents and procedure. They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no authority. The judicial decorum and legal propriety demand that where a learned single Judge or a Division Bench does not agree with the decision of a Bench of subordinate jurisdiction, the matter shall be referred to a larger Bench. It is a subversion of judicial process not to follow this procedure".