Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7.3. It was also contended that the writ petitions suffered from gross delay and laches as the impugned bye-laws had been in operation for nearly 8-9 years prior to their challenge without any sufficient explanation for such delay. Reliance was placed on P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu9 in this regard.

7.4. The learned senior counsel emphasised that the Act, 2001 provides a complete and efficacious statutory mechanism for redressal of disputes. Section 58(2)(c) read with Section 60 vests jurisdiction in the Registrar to adjudicate disputes relating to elections, which are disputes touching the constitution, management or business of a co-operative society. Section 100 accords finality to such decisions by treating them as decrees of a civil court. Further appellate and revisional remedies are provided under Sections 104, 105, 106, and 107. It was submitted that the writ petitioners having failed to exhaust these remedies, (2004) 7 SCC 112 (2014) 9 SCC 294 (1975) 1 SCC 152 could not have invoked Article 226. In this connection, reliance was placed on Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa 10 and Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh11.

14.2. Conversely, disputes which pertain purely to the internal management, governance or electoral processes of co-operative societies do not, as a matter of course, attract writ jurisdiction merely because such societies owe their incorporation to a statute. The existence of a statutory framework regulating such societies does not by itself convert internal disputes into matters of public law. The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 in such cases must therefore be tested on well-established principles, including the nature of the right asserted, the character of the duty alleged to have been breached, and the availability of an efficacious alternate statutory remedy. 14.3. This Court has, in a long line of decisions, delineated the contours for determining when a body, though not “State” within the meaning of Article 12, may nevertheless be amenable to writ jurisdiction. The relevant considerations include whether the body is entrusted with public duties, performs functions of a public nature, or is subject to deep and pervasive State control so as to partake the character of an instrumentality of the State.

15.6. It is well settled that although the existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Courts ordinarily refrain from entertaining writ petitions, where an efficacious statutory remedy is available, particularly in matters concerning elections or where the statute provides for specialised forums. This principle assumes greater significance where the statute not only creates such forums but also manifests an intention to channel disputes through that mechanism. 15.7. No exceptional circumstances were either pleaded or demonstrated to warrant deviation from this settled rule. There was no challenge to the vires of the Act, no allegation of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Registrar, nor any case of manifest violation of fundamental rights incapable of being addressed within the statutory framework.

“4. It is now well settled that once an election is over, the aggrieved candidate will have to pursue his remedy in accordance with the provisions of law and this (sic High) Court will not ordinarily interfere with the elections under Article 226 of the Constitution. (See in this connection para 3 in K.K. Shrivastava v.

Bhupendra Kumar Jain.) The Court will not ordinarily interfere where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy available, particularly in relation to election disputes. In the present case, under Section 70(2)(C) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 any dispute arising in connection with the election of a President, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or member of Committee of the Society has to be referred to the Registrar by raising a dispute before him. The Registrar is required to decide this in accordance with law.” “5. This was, therefore, not a fit case for intervention under Article 226. Hence, the impugned judgment is set aside and the order of the learned Single Judge is restored…” 15.11. Applying the aforesaid principles, it is evident that the dispute raised by the writ petitioners falls squarely within the statutory framework governing co- operative societies. The statute provides a specific and efficacious mechanism for adjudication of such disputes, which has been bypassed by the writ petitioners without any justification.