By Gujarat Bureau
Introduction
Co-operative Societies are body corporate under Sec. 37 of. Gujarat, Co-operative Societies Act. and as per Sec. 4, the object of the Co-operative society is the promotion on of the economic interest for general welfare of its members or of the public in accordance with co-operative principles and one of the co-operative principle is the democratic structure of the organization. Under Sec. 28, every member has a right to vote, but the right to vote is restricted to one vote as against. the company. where the voting power is decided by the shareholding whereas in the case of the co-operative societies, every
member has only one vote irrespective of shareholding. Therefore, all members are equal in voting power irrespective of their contribution in share capital or participation in the business society.
Therefore, the election law for the cooperative society is materially the same as the law laid down under Representation of the People Act and the judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Court are equally applicable in the case of Panchayat, Municipality, Municipal Corporation etc.. for which the statute governing their election is also adopting the broad principles of Representation of the People Act and the election is conducted by public authority, i.e. the Collector Similar provision are incorporated for the specified societies enumerated in Sec. 74-C. for which election is conducted as per Chapter XI-A and the rules made under Sec. 145- Y read with Sec. 168, which are know as Gujarat
Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules. 1982. For the specified societies, these rules Chapter XI-A and the relevant provisions of amending Act, particularly Sec. 74-C, are identical as in the case of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Most of the provisions are parallel to Representation of the People Act. either in Chapter XI-A or the Rules made there under. With this background, we may examine the difference in the: election law as applicable to the co-operative societies and the extent to which the same is different. 2003(1) GLR-432 Nanubhai Vaghani v/s statesec-145. It is obligatory to hold election one month prior to the date of expiration of term.
Election Dispute Pending the Election Process The problems for the disputes arising out of election can be broadly discussed in two categories. Once the election program is declared. the election process is set in motion and in any intermediate process before polling, counting and dedication of result, whether any dispute can be raised and whether
election process can be restrained. In the case of election law in general, i.e., under Representation of the People Act, and election of Panchayat, Municipality. Municipal Corporation etc. under relevant stature cannot be restrained and the suit is premature before the election process is concluded by polling, counting and dedication of result and election petition shall only lie before appropriate Court, after the declaration of result. Similar provision is made for specified societies under Sec.145-U for the election petition to be filed before the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, wherein specific provision
is made that no such petition shall be made till after the final result of the election is declared. In the cooperative societies, in general, there are bye-laws and in some societies, there are election rules in addition to bye-Iaws framed under the bye-laws for regulating the procedure for election. Generally, managing committee i.e., the Board of Directors, is vested with the power to appoint Election Officer, who may be an officer of the society of high rank like Manager, General Manager, Secretary etc. and in some cases; there is a provision for a sub-committee for holding the election. ,It is, therefore, likely to
be influenced by the Chairman and managing committee members, who are in position and power, and therefore, the election process is not impartial in all cases as expected. In many co-operative societies, in the election process, there are large number of wrongful rejection, and thereafter some withdrawal resulting into uncontested elections. Therefore, election dispute can be raised under Sec. 96 before the election process is concluded and in appropriate case, election process can be restrained also. The suit is not premature and can be entertained under Sec. 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act and to
that extent the provision of Representation of the. People Act are not applicable. This view was taken by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court -1975 ‘GLR 1058 (equivalent to AIR 1975 Gujarat 105) in the case of Shrikrishna Gopal Joshi v. Anyonya Sahakari Mandli Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ors. The same view is confirmed in 1996(1) GLH 212: (1196(1) GLR 586) in the case of Ramchandra Bhagwanjee Desai v. Gulabbhai Desai and Ors., in Head Note (A) by holding that the suit relating to election dispute can be filed and entertained oven before the declaration of result of election and Sec. 97 is not controlling Sec. 96 to curtail the jurisdiction ccnferred on the Registrar to entertain the suit. Section 97 provides for the
limitation of the election dispute, i.e., two months after the date of declaration of result. However, the dispute can be entertained before the declaration of result. The situation is now different in the case of specified societies under Sec. 74-C, for which election is held under Chapter XI-A and the petition cannot be entertained before the declaration of result under Sec.74-C as specified societies are large ,societies and their ejections are sensitive, and therefore, they are entrusted to the Collector under Chapter XI-A so as to minimize the irregularities in the election and conducting free, fair and impartial election by independent public authority not connected with the affairs of the society.
Bye-laws of the Society and Ejection Disputes Chapter VII of Gujarat. Co-operative Societies Act titled as “Management of Societies” starts with Sec. 73, which provides that the final authority of every society shall vest in the General Body of the members in General Meeting summoned in such a manner as may be specified in the Bye-laws. Section
74 also provides for the management of every society to vest in a committee constituted in accordance with this Act, the Rules and the Bye-laws. Rule 5(2)(n) provides for making bye-laws in the matter of Constitution and election of the managing committee and its powers and duties. Rule 32(1)(c) leaves a scope for additional qualifications to be prescribed under the bye-laws. Section 145-Z also refers to bye-laws. Therefore, bye-laws are very important in the constitution and election of the managing committee and its powers and duties. Therefore, the question arises whether bye-laws can be enforced
by the Hon’ble High Court under-the writ jurisdiction under Ar1s. 226 and 227. Whether bye-laws have got any statutory force. It was held by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in 1973 GLR 786 in the case of Lambha Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd, Ahmedabad and Ors. v. District Register and Ors. that bye-laws are in terms referred and cited in any provision of the Act they are rewritten in the section and the section could not be read without the language of the bye-laws being rewritten therein. Therefore Sec 7.4. must be treated as creating statutory powers and statutory duties of the managing committee. Hon’ble High
Court can exercise writ jurisdiction under Arts. 226 and 227. This view of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court was dissented in the judgment reported in 1976 GLR 583 in the case of Rajabhai Ranmal Mori and Ors v. Shri Una Taluka Sahakari Khana Vechan Sangh Ltd. and Ors. It was held by Hon’ble High Court that the bye-laws of co-operative societies governed by Gujarat Co-operative Act, 1961, have their origin in contract, and therefore, they do not have a force of a statute and like a Articles of Association of a company, they constitute a contract between the parties. Therefore such bye-laws of a
co-operative society could not be enforced bye writ of the High Court under Art. 226 or 227 of the Constitution in this judgments Hon’ble High Court in Special C.A. No.1005 of 1965 is referred in para 7 The same view is reiterated in AIR-1984 SC 192 holding that bye-laws are neither statutory in character nor having statutory flavour. These two judgments are referred and reconciled by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in a judgment reported in 1977 GLR 692 in the case of Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. v:. Rajkot District. Co-operative Bank . Ltd. and Ors. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in this
judgment, has held that it would not be open to member of a co-operative society to approach the High Court involving its writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 to enforce a bye-laws which has its origin in contract by writ of Mandamus;. For a co-operative society is not a statutory body against which a mandamus lies and the concerned member has no legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the society. What is true, however, in the context of a writ of Mandamus in a proceeding under Art. 226 would not be true in the context of writ of Certiorari in a proceeding under. Art. 227 it was held in this
judgment that the misreading of bye-laws by the Tribunal is an error of law, which can be corrected by a writ of Certiorari under Art. 227. Therefore, the latest view with reference to bye-laws expressed by Hon’ble High Court in 1977 GLR 692 has the effect of reconciling of two judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reported in 1973 GLR 736 and 1976 GLR 583. Therefore, if the Registrar or the Nominee or the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion by misreading of bye- laws the same can be interfered by a write of Certiorari under Art.227 by Hon’ble High Court and view is further followed in 1996 (1) GLH 753 in case of Ranuj Nagrik Sahakri Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 1975 – GLR 1058 as
mentioned above. Is a landmark judgment differentiating the scheme of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act with Representation of the People Act.
Restraining Election Process
The general law of Representation of the People Act does not permit election petition for restraining the election process and the same is case with specified societies under Sec. 74-C, for which election petition lies before Tribunal under Sec. 145-U only after the declaration of result and no petition before the declaration of result is maintainable. However, in case of other societies, the law land down by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in 1975 GLR 1058 (equivalent to AIR 1976 Gujarat 105) holds the field.
The suit prior to declaration of result is maintainable and the same view is confirmed again in 1996(1) GLH 212 equivalent to 1996(1) GLR 586. In the above judgment, it is further held that the Court can Interface with the process of election and the general principle that once the erection starts, the courts are produced from interference with the process of election till the result is declared, is not applicable for the Board of Nominee under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. In a Division Bench judgment reported in 1971 GLR 138, it was held by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court that in the election law, approach
of Court should be to see the eligibility or qualification of candidate and to see the will of the people not polluted by corrupt practice. It was also further held that no technical irregularity should hamper will of the – people. What is essential is purity and eligibility. Therefore, there is a strong reason, which would justify exercise of restraint in the matter of setting aside the election when it is questioned on grounds, which do not touch the essential factor of purity and eligibility. Secondly, election involves considerable expenditure of public revenue and resulting great inconvenience and loss of public time.
There would be good reason, therefore, for not setting at naught the election, which reflects the true will’ of the people some non-essential failure or defects.’ Though this judgment refers to setting aside the election in the trial for procedural irregularities not touching purity and eligibility, the same applies for restraining election process in the ca-se of co-operative society, for which filing of suit is permissible under law before the declaration of result. Therefore, Court should be slow in granting injunction against holding of elections. According to the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, reported in 1982(1) GLR 611, there is provisional finality in matters pertaining to the various stages of
election, for which the relevant para 6 is reproduced below:
“(6) It is a well recognised principle and a matter of public importance that elections should be conducted as early as possible according to the time schedule, and all controversial matters as well as dispute arising out of the elections should be I postponed till after the elections are over so as to avoid an impediment or hindrance in the election proceeding. In other words, there is a provisional finality in matters pertaining to the various : stages of elections.”
Right to vote and right to contest are important right of a member in a cooperative society. Therefore, in a fit case of wrongful rejection election process can be stayed. In case of irregularities of voters list when there is a provision of election programme for publication of provisional voters list and making it final upon inviting objections and representations, provisional finality of the decision of election officer should be considered, However, if elections officer has proceeded on misreading of bye-laws, excluding large number of voters, then the election process can be restrained as per example, if the voters list as on 31-3-1996 is relevant and the voters list as on 31-3-1995 is operated of extrusion of
large number of voters, the same can be a ground for setting aside the election after it is held and it can also be the ground to restrain the process if the suit is filed before the date of polling. This was recently considered by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal Appeal No. 202 of 1996 in case of Ranuj Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. In the case of wrongful acceptance of nomination, the election process should normally not be allowed to be restrained even if the suit is filed before the date of polling since the acceptance nomination will allow one more candidate to contest election and election process should be interfered only in extreme cases where there is an error of law apparent on the face of record net requiring much of appreciation of evidence.
Rejection and Acceptance of Nomination
Acceptance of nomination and rejection of nomination touches the important right of member to contest the election. The suit challenging the wrongful acceptance or wrongful rejection before the election process is completed is not premature and is maintainable as discussed above as per the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat high court reported in 1996(1) GLH 212. Rejection of nomination is a better ground for restraining the election process than wrongful acceptance of nomination in a suit filed before date of polling. Rejection of nomination of large number of candidate together with withdrawal of nomination may result into declaration of successful candidate as uncontested and this situation in
appropriate cases may be even fit situation to restrain the elected candidate. Except the fact that the suit is maintainable before the date of polling the election law for rejection of nomination in the case of cooperative societies, is the same as the election law in case of co-operative societies, is the same election law in case of Representation of the people Act. in the case of acceptance of nomination, when alleged to be a wrongful acceptance and the election is thereafter held, the elected candidate may not be restrained to. function. Rejection or nomination is more serious taken than acceptance of nomination,
since the rejection of nomination deprives right to contest. In a reported judgment of AIR 1995 Kerala 229, Head Note B. C and D arbitrary and erroneous rejection of nomination by returning officer can be quashed In petition under Art. 226. It IS held In this judgment by Hon’ble Kerala High Court that the rejection of nomination on the ground of non mention of date of election is illegal since the date of election is know everybody’. Rejection of nomination on the ground that column for signature and date In attestation from in affidavit was left blank, is also held to be illegal since the attesting officer has
written the date and there is an attestation of signature. Approach of Courts in election matters discussed in Division Bench judgment reported in 12 GLR and therefore, technical irregularity should not hamper the will of the people and the essential factor, which should be considered for setting aside the election is the factum of purity and eligibility. In a judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reported in 1968 GLR 9 it is held that candidate kept out of election, there is a presumption that the election is materially affected. Therefore in case of wrongful rejection, it is not required to be proved that election s materially affected since there is a presumption in favour of election being materially
affected. In case of specified/society also), Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1982, Rule 82(c) does not require it to be proved that the election is materially affected. The question of proving whether the result of the election -has been materially affected is required to be proved in case 0f grounds specified in rule 82(d). Election has to be declared as void when there is improper rejection of nomination papers, is also held in Head Note A of reported judgment of AIR 1976 SC 2130. In a Maharashtra Co-operative Tribunal decision reported in 7 BCT 6, it has been held that when a person has a right to contest the election and when that right is denied to
him by rejecting his right then it amount to causing him irreparable loss.
‘2002 (1) GLR-553 – BK Patel v/s election officer Voting Right of a Member and Voters List Force As per Sec. 28 every member has right to vote, and therefore, the list or members would be generally a list of voters list in the case of primary Co-operative society. In the case of federal co-operative society, the list of voters. will include the names of affiliated societies together with their representative, who are appointed by the resolutions of the respective affiliated societies for appointing them as representatives. In the case of federal societies, the representatives of individual members are through the system of delegates. The number of delegates in a federal society representing in the general body
as well as the number of committee members representing delegates are restricted by Rule No. 15 and bye-law contrary to Rule 15 is invalid, as per reported judgment in 16 GLR 382. As compared to Companies Act. there is no provision of proxy for exercise of voting right of a member. As against the companies there is no provision for voting rights in proportion to the investment for share capital and every member has got only one vote irrespective of share capital investment or participation in the business of the society. Question is, therefore, raised now whether voting right of a member can be restricted by making a provision in . the bye-laws, such as the defaulter member cannot exercise the
right to vote. By combined reading of Sec. 27 and Sec. 28. it follows that the provision of voting right under Sec. 28 is limited to one vote and language is that no member of any society shall have more than one vote, and therefore, he may have maximum one vote or no vote in case certain condition, which may be laid down in the bye-laws. It is therefore held by-The Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal In Appeal no. 10 of 1973 and also in Revision Application No. 136 of 1995 that the provision of such byes restricting in the voting right is not inconsistent with Sec. 28 Therefore, bye-laws call restrict the voting rights of a member. The system of delegates of individual members is generally prevailing in the case of default societies where representation of affiliated society is given more
weightage in the General Body as well as managing committee as per Rule 15. However, in the case of other societies, which are not federal societies, the system of delegates is not generally prevailing. Still, however, the system of indirect election provided in the bye-laws made under the Act was held to be not vocative of the Act. In a reported judgment of Patana High Court, reported in 2 co-operatives cases 215, in para 11, the principle of contemporanea exposition was applied for the interpretation of the Rules, which was interpreted for several years in past. Therefore, the bye-laws where given effect for
the interpretation of voting rights and restricting the voting rights, in the above judgment.
Since every member has a right to vote, the list of member would generally be identical with the voters list except for the case of federal societies wherein the names of the representative appear with the, name of the, society. Whatever detects and deficiencies remaining with the members register maintained as per Sec. 39 will be reflected in the voters list. If there are restriction on the voting right prescribed under the bye-laws. the voters list will affected to that extent. It is a normal experience that a perfect voters list is never possible since the members who died will also appear in the voters, list unless a procedure for appointing legal heir is completed. In absence of any communication about the death of the member to the society, the society will prepare the voter list per the record. Therefore, in these circumstances, there is always a provision for preparation of provisional list of voters. Suct1 a provision is their in the Gujarat Specified Co-operatives Societies Elections to Committee Rules. 1982 for specified societies wherein the procedure for provisional list of voters is prescribed in Rule 5 and Inviting claims and objections and finalising voters list is prescribed in Rules 6,7, and 8. For other societies, the Act or Rules are silent in case of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act and the same is left to bye-laws.
Restraining Elected Candidate to Function
In the general election law, it has been made very clear that the election can be challenged by election petition after the election is over and elected candidate cannot be restrained to function till the election is set aside by trial. The same view was expressed by Hon’ble High Court by Division Bench is S.C.A.
No. 3255 of 1995 that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction 10 entertain any application for injunction under Sec. 145-U of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. Similar view is taken by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in reported judgment in 1982 CT J 74. The most important judgment in this direction is 21 (2) GLR 1. a Division Bench judgment in Somabhai Kacharadas Patel. v. Patel Becharbhai Shambhubhai and Ors. This judgment pertains to Gujarat Municipalities Act. but is equally applicable in the case of G.C.S.. Act. particularly when there is actual polling, counting and declaration of result. In this judgment, Hon’ble High Court has held that the Election Tribunal has no power to issue injunctions under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and no implied powers also. In a co-operative society, the result of the election is taken note in the General Meeting. It was held by Gujarat State Co-op. Tribunal in 18 CTD 75 that taking note of the result cannot change the result and the elected Directors cannot be restrained to function on that ground, and the result declared by the election officer is final unless it is challenged by an election dispute and is set aside by trial.
The settled position of election law is that the elected committee member, i.e., directors, cannot be restrained to function. However there are certain exceptions to it and the. elected Directors may he restrained to function in a rare case very cautiously and not lightly. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1954 SC 210 that tile election held in fragrant breach of law is invalid. Therefore, if there is a patent illegality in the election process, which is so apparent and glaring and not requiring any elaborate evidence, then the elected candidates can be restrained to function. It there are large number of wrongful rejection of nominations followed by few withdrawals resulting into uncontested elections,
such an election is sham and bogus and may require to restrain the elected Director to function. If the election is conducted by show of hands by writing a proceeding to that effect, and when the Act, Rules or Bye-laws require a particular procedure of publication of election programme, then such election is no election and elected Directors may be restrained to function. Therefore, when the bye-laws require a particular procedure to be followed and the same is not followed with ulterior motive of taking away right to contest or right to vote the election so held will be patently illegal and the elected Directors
may by restrained to function. In 1974 CLR 247, in a case before Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. the election of managing committee was held, but the Rules required appointment of presiding returning officer by Registrar and the approval of election programme by the Registrar and ,these provisions were mandatory and were not followed and therefore, the election was held illegal and the action of the Registrar for appointment of Administrator was held legal proper. In similar case before Punjab and Haryana High Court, reported in 1974 CLR 251, the same view was taken since the election programme was not approved by the Registrar as required under the law.
Automatic Cessation
Rule 32 provides for disqualifications of the member of the managing committee. i.e., Board of Directors. The title of Rule 32 is “qualifications” but there are disqualifications prescribed under the same. It was held consistently by Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal in 28 CTD 10 that automatic cessation provided under the bye-laws is invalid. However, the same was overruled in 32 CTD 365 in Revision Application No. 210 of 1993. Rule 32(1) (a) to (g) apply for eligibility for appointment as a member of a committee and Rule 32(1) (A) provides for subsequent incurring of disqualifications, in which a member of the committee shall vacate the officer, is important to hold in favour of automatic cessation. Rule 76(B) also provides for removal of a committee member. In 1987(1) GLR 602, it was
held that the person removed under Sec. 76(B) can be ordered to be disqualified under Sec.75(8)(2): However, if the officer is not removed, he cannot be disqualified under Sac. 76-B(2).
Conclusion
The election law, in general. 2S per Representation of the People Act, is equally applicable to the specified societies under the Amending Act of 1982. The election law for other societies will be different only because the election officer is appointed by the existing managing committee and likely to be influenced by the present management. Since elections of ordinary society attracts is the Constitution of the society, the dispute lies under Sec. 96 and the limitation as prescribed under Sec. 97 for the election dispute after the date of declaration of result within a period of two months is not controlling provision as against Sec. 96, and therefore, the election dispute is not premature in the case
of ordinary society election whereas in the case of specified society election petition is not
maintainable before the result of the election. The election of the co-operative society is also different because the bye-laws of Co-operative satiety play an important role since the bye-laws are incorporated in Sec. 74 and bye-laws are made in pursuance of Rule 5(2)(n), In some societies, there are election rules framed under the bye-laws. Though byelaws are in the nature of contract having no statutory force, but the effects of bye-laws is much more than a binding contract since the same is registered by the Registrar under See, 13 in case of amendment and the original bye-laws are registered at the time of
registration under Sec.9. Therefore, bye-laws cannot be ignored or misread in the original proceedings before the Nominee and can certainly be interfered in the writ jurisdiction of Hon’ble High Court by a writ of certiorari under Art. 227 as per the decision reported in 1977 GLR 692 and 1996(1) GLH 753.
Election Petition Before the Tribunal and Election Dispute Before the Board of Nominee
Normally the election dispute lies before the learned Board of Nominee under Sec. 96 of G.C.S. Act, since the same touches the Constitution of the society. However, in the case of specified societies, the, jurisdiction for the election petition is conferred upon the Tribunal under Sec. 145-U with a clause notwithstanding anything contained in Sec. 96 or any other provisions of this Act, any dispute relating to an election shall be referred to the Tribunal. Therefore, the election ,disputes, which are covered under, Sec. 145-U are referred to the Tribunal and those, which are not covered under Sec. 145-U still
remain with the Board of Nominee. The definition of the word “election” is given in Sec. 145-B(b) to appreciate the position in a better way, Sees. 145-A, 145-B(b), 145-U(1) and 145-Z are reproduced as under:
“145-A . All Section of this Chapter except Section 145-Z shall apply to elections to committee of societies belonging to the categories specified in Sec. 74C”
“145-B(b). “Election” means election of a member or members of the committee of specified society”.
“145-U (1). Notwithstanding anything contained in Sec. 96 or any other provisions of this Act, any dispute relating to an election shall be referred to the Tribunal”.
“145-Z. (1) This section shall apply only to election of officers by members of committees of societies belonging to the categories specified in Sec 74C.
(2) After the election of the members of the committee whenever such election is due. the election of the officer or officers of any such society shall be held as provided in its bye-laws, but any meeting of the committee for this purpose shall be presided over by the Collector or an officer nominated by him in this behalf.
Reading of above sections imply that the definition of “election” in Sec. 145B(b) does not apply to Sec. 145-Z and therefore, the dispute relating to Sec. 145-Z will remain with the Board of Nominee as the original jurisdiction and the Tribunal will have revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 150(9).
In he case of federal societies, he representation of individual member is restricted by Rule 15, and therefore any provision in contravention to Rule 15 made in the bye-laws will make the bye, laws ultra vires to rules, and therefore, such bye-laws will be illegal as per the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reported in 1973 GLR 382. In the case of federal society having affiliated society as its members, the representative of the affiliated society will be nominated by the affiliated society by a resolution and the voters list of the affiliated society will contain the name of the societies as well as the names of the representatives. If the federal society is also a specified society the Collector conducting the election will accept the resolution of the society end any dispute relating to the resolution for nominating the representative of the federal society can be challenged. by election dispute before the nominee.
Election of a Specified Society
The amending Act of 1982 made a provision for specified societies under Sec. 74-C for which ejection is conducted as per Chapter XI-A and Gujarat Specified Co-op. Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1982. Since the election is conducted by the Collector and the provisions are analogous or identical to those of the Representation of The People Act, and other Acts, for which the election is conducted by Collector, the election law is identical in nature for specified societies. The list of specified societies is such that it includes all sensitive co-operative organisations like all primary land development banks, all Dist. Co-operative Sale and Purchase. Organisation Co-operative Milk Unions, Taluka Co-op.
Processing Societies. The advantage of including a type of society as a specified society that the election is, conducted by public authority like Collector and therefore, there IS a free ‘and fair election.
The second advantage is provided in the law under. Sec. 145-U that the election petition cannot lie before the declaration of the result, and therefore, the election dispute are minimized and referred to a level higher than the Board of Nominee, i.e., the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal and the Tribunal is vested with the original jurisdiction. The State Government under Sec.74 C(1 )(vii) may, by general or special order, include any other society or class of societies. The most sensitive, societies. which are left out are the Urban co-operative Banks, for which the election disputes are now maximum. Since Urban Co-operative Banks are in number involving corers of rupees of deposits of non-members and
the voters are also in most of the more than 10,000. It is necessary to include, then in the list of specified society under this provision.
As mentioned earlier, the provisions of the election of specified society incorporated in Chapter XI-A and Gujarat Specified Co-op. Societies Elections to Committee Rules. 1982 are identical in nature, This can be illustrated by comparative list of some illustrations and the reference of Rule will be Election to Specified societies Committees Rules and reference of section will be that of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act.
Representation of the People Act, 1951 Gujarat Co-Operative Act, 1961
1. Section 81 : Presentation of petition
1. Rule 75 : Presentation of election petition – Sec. 145-U.
2. Section 82 : Parties to the petition.
2. Rule 76 : Parties to the petition. 3. Section 83 : Contest of petition.
3. Section 145-W : Contents of petition. 4. Section 84 : Relief that may be claimed by
the Petitioner.
4. Rule 145-X : Relief that may be claimed by the
Petitioner.
5. Section 86 : Trial of election petitions.
5. Rule 77 : Trial of election petitions, to some extent. 6. Section 100 : Grounds for declaring
election to be void
6. Rule 82 : Ground for declaring election to be void.
7. Section 101 : Grounds for which a candidate other
than the returned candidate may be declared to have
been elected.
7. Rule 83 : Grounds for which a candidate other
than the returned candidate may be declared to
have been elected.
8. Section 102 : Procedure in case of an
equality of votes.
8. Rule 84 : Procedure in case of an equality of votes. 9. Section 107 : Effect of orders of the High
Court.
9. Rule 85 : Effect of order of the Government.
Election rules in Gujarati Download here: 05-Hou-Soc-Election-Bye-LawsGujarat
