Holding

Section 144‑T of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960 is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14.

Summary

Padmasinhji Bajirao Patil and others challenged the constitutional validity of Section 144‑T of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, which makes the order of the Commissioner or a specified officer in election disputes final and conclusive with no provision for appeal or revision. The petitioners argued that the lack of a corrective machinery violated Article 14 of the Constitution and was arbitrary. The Supreme Court examined the purpose of Section 144‑T, noting that it was enacted to provide a specialised, speedy mechanism for adjudicating election disputes in large cooperative societies and that its limited powers were linked to the objectives of Chapter XI‑A of the Act. Relying on the earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in Chapadgaon Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. v. Collector of Ahmednagar, the Court held that the classification was reasonable and not violative of Article 14. Consequently, the challenge was rejected and the provision was upheld as constitutionally valid.

Issues considered

Whether the absence of an appellate or revision remedy against the order of the Commissioner under Section 144‑T violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether Section 144‑T of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960 is arbitrary or unreasonable.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960s. 144-T

Subjects

constitutional validityelection disputescooperative societiesArticle 14finality of ordersno appellate remedySection 144-TMaharashtra Co-operative Societies Act

Judgment

A PADMASINGHJI BAJIRAO PATIL AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ·-
<f

SEPTEMBER 16, 1999

B [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.]

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960:

c S. 144-T-Election disputes-Order by Commissioner or specified
officer-To be final and conclusive-Provision challenged as there is no
corrective machinery by way of appeal or revision provided against the
-
order 11/s. 144-T, and it is violcftive of Article 14 of the Constitution-Held.
the provision does not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness-S. 144-T was
enacted with a view to provide for a specific machinery for adjudication of
D election disputes relating to big institutions-It confers only limited powers
for adjudicating election disputes qua specific societies only and there is a
clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved by Chapter XI A of the
Act-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14.

E Chapadgaon Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. and Ors., v.
Collector of Ahmednagar and Ors., (1989) Mh. L.J. 872, approved. -
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12431 of
1996 Etc. Etc.

pr From the' Judgment and order dated 10.1.96 of the Bombay High Court
in W.P. No. 5759of1995.

A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellants.

G.B. Sathe, for the Respondents.
·~
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered:

Delay condoned in SLP(C)No. 14075/99 (CC.5231/96).

Leave granted in SLP (C) 14075/99 (CC 5231/96) and SLP (C) No. 21615/96.
H 660
P.B.PATILv.STATE 661
Challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 144-T of the A
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act') failed before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and the
Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated January
10, 1996. These appeals by special leave put that judgment of the Bombay
High Court in issue before us.
B
Section 144-T of the Act lays down:

"144-T. Disputes relating to elections to be submitted to the
Commissioner or other specified officer.-{ I) Notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 91 or any other provisions of this Act, any C
- dispute relating to an election shall be referred to the Commissioner
of the Division in which such election is held or to an officer not
below the rank of Additional Commissioner of a Division authorised
by the State Government in this behalf (hereinafter in this Section
either of them as the context may require is referred to as "the specified
Officer" D

(2) Such reference may be made by an aggrieved party by
presenting an election petition to the specified officer, within a period
of two months from the date of declaration of the result of the
election;
E
Provided that, the specified officer may admit any petition after
the expiry of that period, if the petitioner satisfies the specified officer
that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the petition within the
.said period.
F
(3) in exercising the functions conferred on him by or under this
Chapter, the specified officer shall have the same powers as are
vested in a Court in respect of-

(a) proof of facts by affidavit;
..r-•
G
(b) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and
examining him on oath;

(c) compelling discovery of the production of documents; and

(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses. H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

··A In "the case of any such affid~vit, an officer appointed by the
specified officer in this behalf may administer the oath to the deponent.

(4) Subject to any rules made by the State Government in this
behalf, any such petition shall be heard and disposed of by the
specified officer as expeditiously as possible. An order made by the
B specified officer on such petition shall be final and conclusive and
shall not be called in question in any Court."

The basic grounds on which the chalienge was made to the constitutional
validitY of the aforesaid provisions were; (a) that there is no corrective
C machinery by way of appeal ·or revision· provided against the order of the
Commissioner under Section I 44-T and (b) that it was violative of Article I 4
of the Constitution of India.

From a perusal of the Scheme of the Act, it appears that Section I 44-
Twas enacted with a view to provide for a separate machinery for adjudication
D of election disputes relating to big institutions. This Section confers only
limited powers for adjudicating election disputes qua specific societies only
and there .is a clear nexus with the .object sought to be achieved by C~apter
XI A of the Act. In our opinion the provision does not suffer from the vice
of arbitrariness or unreasonableness either.
E
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Chapadgaon Vividh
Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd and Ors. v. Collector of Ahmednagar
and Ors., (1989) Mh. L.J. 872 considered the constitutional validity of
Section 144-T of the Act. The precise arguments raised in the present case
were also raised before the High Court in that case. The same were
F considered at great length and repelled. The Division Bench noticed that
the area and field covered by the provisions were distinct and separate and
by process of comparative study of distinct and separate provisions. Section
144-T of the Act could not be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It was also opined that the classification made was reasonable
G and had a clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved by Chapter-
XIA of the Act, namely, that the elections be conducted under the control
of the Collector.

The reasoning given by the Bombay High Court in Chapadgaon Vividh
Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd and Ors.. (supra) is correct and appeals
H to us. That judgment of the Division Bench has been relied upon in the
P.B. PATIL v. STATE 663
-- instant case by the High Court. In the view that we have taken, no fault can A
be found with the impugned judgment of the High Court, repelling the challenge
to the constitutional validity of Section 144-T of the Act.

These appeals have thus no merits and are dismissed. No costs.

RP. Appeals dismissed. B

;