Co-Operative Society Membership Does Not Revive Automatically After The Cause Of Disqualification Ceases To Exist: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court held that the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act does not provide for the revival of the status as a member after the cause for disqualification ceases to exist.
The Court was deciding a writ petition filed by a woman whose election as a Director of a Union was questioned by one of the contestants in the election.
A Single Bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde observed, “If a provision of Statute takes way the status of ‘membership in a Co-operative Society’ conferred under the Statute, on incurring the disqualification prescribed, the said status of a ‘member’ can be restored or conferred only in the manner provided in the Statute. The Act of 1959 does not provide for the revival of the status as a member after the cause for disqualification ceases to exist."
The Bench said that since the membership is the basic eligibility prescribed to be a Director of Union, and directorship is the basic eligibility prescribed to be a delegate, the disqualification as a member strikes at the root.
Senior Advocate Ashok Horanahalli represented the petitioner while Senior Advocate D R Ravishankar represented the respondents.
In this case, a dispute was raised under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The respondent contestant urged that the petitioner was not a member of the Union which she claimed to have represented when she contested the election. The Authority under Section 70, rejected the plea of the said contestant and in an appeal filed by the contestant, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal set aside the petitioner’s election as a Director of the Union. The petitioner was, therefore, before the High Court primarily on the following three grounds –
a. The contestant has no locus to question the petitioner's membership or eligibility to contest the election to the Board of Union.
b. No provision in the Act of 1959 enables the contestant in an election to the Board of a Federal Society, to raise an election dispute questioning the eligibility of the candidate in the election to the Board of Federal Society, on the ground that the contestant is not a member of the primary Society which he claims to represent.
c. The primary Society which is a member of the respondent Union has not incurred any disqualification to represent and contest in the election to the Board of the respondent Union. Individual disqualification, if any of a contestant is not a ground to raise an election dispute.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “The member can be either a person who joins in an application for registration of a Co–operative Society or one who is admitted as a member after incorporation of a Co-operative Society. Thus, the petitioner claims to have been admitted as a member in 2006. However, as already held the membership ceased in 2015 consequent to her employment in the same society, re-admission is not sought.”
The Court added that the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria to be a director of the Society as the petitioner was not a member when she was co-opted as a director and thus, she could not have been appointed as a ‘delegate’ of the Society to represent the Union.
“The other candidates or the members of the Society for whose Board the election will have locus to raise an election dispute. Hence, the 5th respondent though not a member of the 4th respondent society has a locus to question the membership of the petitioner in the 4th respondent Society when the petitioner contested the election to the Board of a co-operative union to which the 5th respondent also contested”, it said.
The Court further observed that no doubt Section 17(3) of the Act provides an adjudicatory mechanism to resolve the dispute relating to the disqualification of a member and the dispute is to be adjudicated by the Registrar, however, it does not mean, that if a question as to the disqualification of a member has a bearing on the election of a candidate to the Board of a cooperative society, the party aggrieved by such candidate participating in an election has to raise two disputes, one under Section 17(3) and another under Section 70(2)( c) of the Act.
“Section 17(3) does not enable the Registrar to set aside an election of a member on the ground that he has incurred disqualification. The Registrar under Section 70(2)(c) of the Act of 1959 has the jurisdiction to decide the dispute on the validity of the election of a candidate if the ground is raised that the candidate had incurred disqualification under Section 17(1)(f) of Act of 1959, or ineligible to contest for not meeting the criteria prescribed under the Bye-law of a Society which he represents. … The Registrar acting under Section 70 erred in dismissing the Election Petition. The fact that the 5th respondent did not object to the nomination of the petitioner cannot be a ground to dismiss the Election Petition. Not filing an objection to the nomination papers submitted by a returned candidate does not constitute a bar or estoppel to raise an election dispute after the declaration of results”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title- Ms. Roopa M. v. The Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Ashok Horanahalli and Advocate Nischal Dev B R.
Respondents: Senior Advocates D R Ravishankar, M R Rajagopal, AGA Sidharth Babu Rao, Advocates B Ravindra Prasad, Ramesha H E, and P Anand.
