Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Both the above writ petitions challenge the election notified to the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Limited [MATSYAFED]. The challenge raised is on two different grounds. But, since the matters have been heard together and the challenge is levelled against the very same election notification, it is deemed fit that the matters also be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. W.P.(C).No.31371 of 2014 challenge the election notification dated 31.10.2014 on the ground that the same is in violation of the bye-laws. The notification is produced as Exhibit P2 and it shows that the election is to 14 constituencies; of which 3 [three] have been set apart for women, 1 [one] for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and the balance 10 [ten] being general seats. The objection raised is with respect to the election being confined to 14 constituencies, while the bye-laws of the MATSYAFED provide for election of 15 [fifteen] members to the Board of Directors.

31449 of 2014

3. Exhibit P1 is the bye-laws, clause 14 of which, provides for the constitution of a Board of Directors having 15 members elected from the delegates of 'A' Class members and 7 [seven] Ex-Officio Directors. The maximum number of members in the Board of Directors is also restricted to 25 [twenty-five], by the said bye-laws. The bye-laws are in consonance with the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 [for brevity "the Act"] as it existed prior to the amendment of sub-section (1A) of Section 28. Sub-section (1A) of Section 28 as it stands now, provides that in the case of Primary Co-operative Societies, the maximum number of members of the Committee shall not be more than 15 and in the case of all other types of Co-operative Societies, 21. The petitioner contends that a reduction, to comply with the mandate of the Section, ought to have been brought in only by an amendment to the bye-laws. In fact, the MATSYAFED ought to have complied with the mandate of the statute, by removing one nominee from the Ex-Officio Directors stipulated under sub-clause (b) of Clause 14(i) of the bye-laws, is the argument. The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically points to the counter affidavit of the respondents, which refute such contention on the ground that a bye-law amendment is required to delete an Ex-Officio Director. The same principle would  31449 of 2014 apply in the reduction of elected members from 15 to 14, is the contention of the petitioner. The election would have to be interdicted especially considering the fact that reduction has been brought in to the vacancies which are filled up by election, and the conduct of the election as constituted now, would result in compromising the democratic process, is the contention.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader (Co-operation), however, would support the action of the Election Commission, insofar as the bye-laws are subservient to the statute. Election to the society furthers the democratic process and it is only to ensure the entrustment of the Managing Committee to a democratically elected committee that the present election is proposed. The substantial financial interest of the State in the MATSYAFED would not commend reduction of Ex-Officio Directors, is the argument. A pragmatic approach has to be taken and when there is a conflict with the statute and bye-laws, necessarily the statute would prevail, contends the learned Special Government Pleader. The learned counsel appearing for the MATSYAFED would support the contentions of the learned Special Government Pleader and would, alternatively, assail the locus standi of the petitioner. The learned counsel would specifically point out that the member societies of the  31449 of 2014 MATSYAFED are those affiliated as per the statute and only such society gets a right to exercise the franchise. The petitioner is the President of a Society, who cannot claim any such right. In any event, the reduction of one member does not at all prejudice the petitioner, if at all he is nominated by the Society, since the elections are not on ward basis and none who have been nominated by the affiliated societies would be declined participation in the election by reason only of one vacancy from among the elected members having been reduced.

10. Dealing with the contentions in W.P.(C).No.31371 of 2014, it has to be noticed that Section 28 provides for and restricts the maximum number of members of a society to 21, in the case of societies similar to the respondent-Society. The bye-laws of the society, in consonance with the earlier provision of maximum 25, provided for 15 elected members and 7 Ex-Officio members. The fact that the Ex-Officio Directors were stipulated in the bye-laws coupled with the fact that the Government has substantial financial interest in the MATSYAFED, would not commend a reduction of such Ex-Officio members to comply with the mandate of sub-section (1A) of Section 28. In any event, that is not a matter of which this Court would speak on, under Article 226 of the Constitution. That definitely would be an issue to be placed before the General Body, as to whether any reduction of any Ex-Officio  31449 of 2014 members would have to be made or not.