Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. It is submitted by the petitioners that the learned Deputy Registrar did not have any jurisdiction to determine the legality of election of the managing committee of the society. Such issue could be decided only by the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act. He submits that the impugned order thus passed by the Deputy Registrar on 20th April, 2019 appointing the respondent no.2 wpl1700-19.doc as Authorized Officer under Section 77A of the MCS Act is without jurisdiction.

wpl1700-19.doc

20. Learned Counsel for the interveners placed reliance on Section 73-I of the MCS Act and would submit that it was the duty of the managing committee members of the respondent no.4 to intimate the State Co-operative Election Authority for holding election before expiry of the atleast six months before expiry of its term as contemplated under Section 73CB(14)(a) of the MCS Act. He submits that since the then managing committee members of the respondent no.4 did not inform the State Co-operative Election Authority before expiry of its term in compliance of Section 73CB(14)(a) of the MCS Act to the State Co-operative Election Authority, the members of the then managing committee ceased to hold their office and in such a situation, the Deputy Registrar was empowered to take action as contemplated under Section 77A of the MCS Act. On taking such action under Section 73A of the MCS Act by the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar as the case may be the Authorized Officer was required to intimate to the State Co-operative Election Authority for holding of election with immediate effect. He submits that the Deputy Registrar was empowered to pass an appropriate order under Section 77A of the MCS Act and to appoint an Authorized Officer. He submits that proviso inserted by the Ordinance dated 30th October, 2018 to Section 73CB(11) would not apply to the respondent no.4 society and thus the so called election purported to have been held by the respondent no.4 society was totally without jurisdiction. The question of filing any dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act therefore did not arise.