Skip to content


P.B.K. Raja Chidambaram Vs. the Tiruchirapalli District Co-operative Central Bank, Ltd., by Its Secretary - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectElection
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1966)2MLJ370
AppellantP.B.K. Raja Chidambaram
RespondentThe Tiruchirapalli District Co-operative Central Bank, Ltd., by Its Secretary
Excerpt:
- .....secretary to forbear from holding the special meeting for the election of the president and the vice-president for the bank at 3 p.m. on 13th march, 1966. the petitioner was a director and vice-president of the bank having been elected for three years from 1st january, 1965. but he retired on 31st december, 1965, because according to the rules one-third of the directors had to retire by rotation. for filling up the vacancy caused by the petitioner's retirement, elections were to be held by the lalgudi co-operative supervising union, ltd., wherefrom the petitioner was returned. dates for the nomination, scrutiny, time for withdrawal and the election were fixed. the petitioner also filed the nomination for election to the directorate of the tiruchirapalli co-operative central bank from.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.S. Kailasam, J.

1. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Tiruchirapalli District Co-operative Central Bank, Ltd., represented by its Secretary to forbear from holding the special meeting for the election of the President and the Vice-President for the bank at 3 P.M. on 13th March, 1966. The petitioner was a Director and Vice-President of the bank having been elected for three years from 1st January, 1965. But he retired on 31st December, 1965, because according to the Rules one-third of the directors had to retire by rotation. For filling up the vacancy caused by the petitioner's retirement, elections were to be held by the Lalgudi Co-operative Supervising Union, Ltd., wherefrom the petitioner was returned. Dates for the nomination, scrutiny, time for withdrawal and the election were fixed. The petitioner also filed the nomination for election to the Directorate of the Tiruchirapalli Co-operative Central Bank from the Lalgudi Co-operative Supervising Union. The petitioner's nomination was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had seconded the nomination of another candidate. The petitioner challenged the validity of the rejection of his nomination by a writ petition. In the writ petition it was held that the rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper was erroneous and the order rejecting his nomination was quashed.

2. Along with the petitioner, the President of the bank also retired by rotation. The election of the President and the Vice-President is to take place. The President and the Vice-President will have to be elected by the Directors. Two-thirds of the Directors that were elected in the year 1965 continued to function as directors and with regard to one-third of the directors, who retired by rotation, elections were conducted to all the seats except two, one of which being the representative from the Lalgudi Co-operative Supervising Union. After the disposal of the writ petition declaring that the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner by the Scrutiny Committee of the Lalgudi Co-operative Supervising Union was erroneous the Secretary of the Bank called for a meeting of the Directors of the bank by notice dated 5th March, 1966 for the 13th instant at 3 P.M. The petitioner prays that the Court may issue a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of the Tiruchirapalli District Co-operative Central Bank, Ltd., not to hold the special meeting on the ground that, since the election of the two Directors have not yet taken place, the President and Vice-President cannot be validly elected. Learned Counsel submitted that the election of a Director from the Lalgudi Co-operative Supervising Union ought to be held earlier than the President's election for that would give an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the Presidentship or the Vice-Presidentship. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner has been illegally deprived of his right to contest for the two posts. He also pointed out that the petitioner had been Vice-President of the bank up till his retirement by rotation and that he has a fair chance of being re-elected. Apart from the merits of the case, learned Counsel submitted that in law the election of the President and the Vice-President cannot be held now, as it is contrary to Rule 31 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963. He also submitted that the Secretary is not the competent authority to call for a meeting for election of the President and the Vice-President according to the Rules. Rule 31(2) provides that as soon as the members of the Committee have been elected, the President of the Society shall arrange to convene a meeting of the Committee for the purpose of the election of the officers. Learned Counsel would submit that this rule can only be understood to mean that the election of the President of the society can only take place after the members of the Committee have been elected and that the only authority that can arrange for the meeting is the President of the Society. No doubt, in the ordinary course of events the election of the members of the Committee would precede the election of the President or the Vice-President, for the President and Vice-President are elected only from the members that are elected. But there may be cases in which for some unforeseen reason, election of one or two members of the Committee could not take place. A reading of the Rules does not justify the contention that no election of the President could be held before all the members are elected. There could be no objection to holding a meeting for the election of the President and the Vice-President, even though one or two members are yet to be elected. The contention of the learned Counsel that it is only the President of the Society that can arrange to convene a meeting for the election of the President and the Vice-President cannot be accepted. In this case, the President and the Vice-President have retired by rotation and some authority will have to convene a meeting. There is nothing in the Rules in support of the contention that in the absence of the President, it is only the Registrar that can arrange to convene a meeting. I am unable to accept any of the contentions put forward by the learned Counsel.

3. The writ petition is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //