Page 1 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10392 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 26017 Of 2013)

RAJKOT DISTT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ………APPELLANT

Vs.

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ………RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10393-10394 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 13201-13202 Of 2012),

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10395-10398 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C)Nos.12219-12222 Of 2012),

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10399 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29726 Of 2013),

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10400 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27573 Of 2013),

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10401 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29727 Of 2013)

And

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10402 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29728 Of 2013

J U D G M E N T

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

The applications for impleadment filed in the

SLP(C) Nos. 29726 of 2013, 29727 of 2013 and 29728 of

Page 2 2

2013 are allowed. Leave granted in all the special

leave petitions.

2.The appellants before this Court have filed

these appeals questioning the correctness of the

impugned orders dated 15.11.2011, 30.1.2012 (passed

by the Division Bench) and common impugned order

dated 04.07.2013 (passed by the full Bench) of the

High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.

3.Since all the appeals are identical in nature,

we would refer to the facts of the case arising out

of Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) NO. 26017 of 2013 for the

sake of convenience and brevity and for examining the

rival legal contentions urged in these appeals.

4.The State of Gujarat enacted and put on the

statute book, Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act of

1961 (in short “the Act”) in order to consolidate

and amend the laws relating to the cooperative

societies in the State of Gujarat. Thereafter, the

Act was amended by the Act of 1982. Initially, as

per the Act of 1961, the Managing Committee of the

Co-operative Society was to be constituted in

accordance with the Act, Rules and bye-laws. By the

Page 3 3

Act of 1982, the proviso was inserted by way of an

amendment to the effect that so far as the committee

of a society falling in the category of Section

74C(1) of the Act is concerned, the rotation for

retirement, if provided by the bye-laws of a

particular number of members of the Managing

Committee shall cease to remain in force.

5.Further, as per the Act of 1982, Section 74C

together with the other provisions of the amending

Act was brought on the statute book, which provided

that the election of the members of the Managing

Committee/Board and the office bearers on the

committees of such specified societies shall be

conducted in the manner laid down by or under

Chapter XI-A of the Act, which was also

simultaneously inserted by way of amendment Act of

1982, for conducting elections to the committees and

office bearers of certain societies which are so

specified under Section 74C(1) of the Act. As per

the scheme of the said chapter, the election of such

specified societies is required to be held on such

date or dates as the Collector may fix under his

Page 4 4

control. Prior to the amendment, the election of

the managing committee was to be conducted by the

society itself as per its registered bye-laws. So

far as the societies included as specified societies

under Section 74C(1) of the Act are concerned, a

separate mode of conducting election was provided

and the power of conducting such election was given

to the Collector notwithstanding anything contained

in the bye-laws of such societies. The said aspect

was made clear under the provisions of Section 74(C)

(2) and (3) of the Act which were inserted by way of

amending Act of 1982. Chapter XI-A of the Act

provides for separate mode for deciding the election

dispute by Election Tribunal. Section 145(U) of the

Act provided the State Government with rule making

power and to regulate all or any of the other

matters relating to the various stages of elections

including preparation of the list of voters.

6.In exercise of the powers conferred upon the

State Government under Section 168 read with Sections

145(A), 145(U) and 145(Y), the State Government of

Gujarat framed the Gujarat Specified Co-operative

Page 5 5

Societies Election to Committee Rules of 1982 (in

short “the Rules”). These Rules provide for various

stages of election from the preparation of the voters

list till the result is declared and further

consequential steps to be taken in the process. In

the year 1987, Rules 3-A and 3-B were inserted in the

Rules of 1982 by the Rule Making Authority which

provided for delimitation of the constituencies in

the respective society/societies, for the purpose of

conducting election of the Managing Committee Members

and a separate procedure was provided for election of

members reserved in sub- section (1) of Section 74B

of the Act.

7. The constitutional validity of the amended

provisions of the Act of 1982 was challenged before

the High Court in the case of Amreli District Co-

operative Sale and Purchase Union Ltd. v. State of

Gujarat

1

. The Division Bench of the High Court

declared Sections 17(A), 24, 51(2), 69 and also the

proviso to Section 74 as ultra vires the

Constitution. However, the provisions of Sections

74A, 74B, 74C, 74D, 76A, 76B, 80(A) and 80(2) were

1

(1984) 2 GLR 1244

Page 6 6

upheld. The said matters were carried before this

Court, but subsequently came to be withdrawn.

Therefore, the decision of the Gujarat High Court in

the aforesaid case became final and has been

operating since.

8.Subsequently, certain provisions were deleted

but Section 74C and other provisions in relation to

the conduct of election, including Chapter XI A and

the Rules, remained in the statute book. Therefore,

legal position remained as per the original Act even

after the Amendment Act of 1982. The election of the

Managing Committee members of a society other than

the specified societies was required to be held as

per the bye laws of such societies. Whereas, so far

as the specified societies covered by Section 74C(1)

of the Act are concerned, the election was required

to be held as per Chapter XI A read with the Rules of

1982.

9.A legal question for interpretation to Rule 3-A

(8) and also the validity of bye-laws clause No.

35(1)(A) of Sabarkantha Milk Producers Union Ltd.

arose before the High Court in the case of Antakampa

Page 7 7

Milk Producers Co-operative Society Limited v.

Sabarkantha Milk Producers Union Ltd.

2

. The learned

Single Judge of the High Court in the said case held

that Section 74C sub Section (3) of the Act, has an

overriding effect on any other bye-laws of such

society. It was also found that as per Rule 3-A (8) ,

the number of constituencies have to be equal to the

total number of seats excluding two reserved seats as

provided under Section 74B of the Act. The learned

Single Judge in the said case found that the bye law

No. 35(1)(A), provided seats for more than one person

for each constituency and therefore, the bye laws

were not in conformity with Rule 3-A (8) of the Rules

and found that the bye-laws can operate to the extent

of 7 representatives to be elected from 7 separate

constituencies of a Specified Cooperative Society and

therefore, the High Court has held the Rule 3-A(8) of

the Rules as valid to that extent only.

10.In the meanwhile, the Division Bench of the

Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Sadwadar Seva

Sahkari Mandali Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Gujarat

3

,

2

(2004)1 GLR 310

3

(2010) 3 GLR 2154

Page 8 8

went into the case once again with regard to the

holding of the election to the Managing Committee of

the Bank in accordance with Rule 3-A (8) of the

Rules. The Division Bench found that when Rule 3-A

(8) and Rule 43 are examined in juxtaposition, it has

held that the object and intendment of the said Rules

and the field of the operation of the said two

provisions are different inasmuch as the former deals

with “constituencies” bifurcated on the

“territorial/zone basis”. The Division Bench did

consider the view taken by the learned Single Judge

of Gujarat High Court in the case of Antakampa Milk

Producers Co-operative Society Limited (supra) and

found that in the said case, the constituencies were

bifurcated zone or territory wise.

11.Again the question for consideration of the

provisions of Rule 3-A (8) read with Section 74C of

the Act arose in the case of Khanodar Milk Producers

Co-operative Societies Ltd. and Others v. State of

Gujarat

4

. The second Division Bench of the High Court

found that the bye law providing more than one

representative to be elected in more than one

4

(2012)1 GLH 245

Page 9 9

constituency would be in contravention of Rule 3-A

(8) and it is held that, in the case of Sadvadar

Sahkari (supra), the members of the society were

comprised of various classes of societies, whereas in

the case of Antakampa Milk Producers Cooperative

Society Ltd., the members constituted homogeneous

group and not heterogeneous group. Therefore,

adopting the decision of the case Antakampa Milk

Producers Cooperative Society Ltd. , the Division

Bench set aside the bye laws clause No. 35 (1) of the

said Society which provides for voting right for more

than one seat in one constituency.

12.Further, the constitutional validity of Rule 3-A

(8) of the Rules was again challenged before the High

Court of Gujarat, in the case of Banaskantha

District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v.

State of Gujarat

5

, wherein the Division Bench of the

High Court held that if any of the Rules are lawfully

framed under the provisions of the Act and

restrictions were imposed in relation to the subject

matter of any of the clauses of the registered bye

laws of the Society, such restrictions must be

5

(2012) 2 GLR 1522

Page 10 10

adhered to by it and any such clause in the bye-laws

which is in violation of the restriction imposed by

the Rules should be deleted. It was further held that

the State Government while framing the impugned

provisions of the Rules has not deviated from the

principles mentioned under Section 74C (3) of the

Act, but it has only created a position by making

provisions of the election of members from the

General Body. The Division Bench of the High Court

held that Rule 3-A (8) of the Rules is neither in

conflict with any of the provisions of the Act nor

was it held to be bad in law for want of Authority of

the delegated legislation. Therefore, Rule 3-A(8) of

the Rules was held to be legal and valid by the High

Court by giving its reasons.

13.Similar questions regarding the legality and

validity of Rule 3-A(8) of the Rules arose when the

present group of appeals were listed before the High

Court. The Division Bench of the High Court

formulated the following legal issues and referred

the same to the full Bench:

(1)Whether Rule 3-A of the Rules introduced by

Page 11 11

the amendment dated 10.08.1987 could be

applied to the societies bye-laws which

provide for a single constituency?

(2)Whether the scheme of the Rules permit the

specified societies having a single

constituency, more than one seat for one

constituency and whether members of such

society can legally be permitted to vote for

more than one seat?

(3)Whether Collector has jurisdiction to make

an order for delimitation of the

constituencies, in absence of any proceeding

undertaken in accordance with Section 14 of

the Act?

(4)Whether delimitation of the constituencies

under Rule 3-A of the Rules can only be

territory-wise and/or whether delimitation

of the constituencies can be based upon

objects and activities of the member

societies or classes of individual members?

After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the

Page 12 12

full Bench of the High Court answered the legal

questions against the appellant-societies by passing

the impugned judgment and orders which are challenged

in these appeals before this Court urging various

legal grounds.

14. We have heard the learned counsel on both the

sides. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel

for the appellants that the findings and reasons

recorded in the impugned judgment while answering the

questions of law on the points referred to the Full

Bench are not only erroneous but also suffers from

error in law. Reliance was placed by them upon the

judgment of this Court in the case of Ziley Singh

v. Registrar Cane Cooperative Societies Lucknow

6

. It

is contented that the Rule 3-A (8) of the Rules is

contrary to the bye-laws of the appellant-Societies

and the statutory provisions of the Act. The Act

provides for amendments of the bye laws without

allowing the societies to get their bye laws amended

as per the procedure laid under the provisions of the

Act and without laying down certain guidelines in the

Rules for the amendment of the relevant clauses of

6

(1972) 1 SCC 719

Page 13 13

the registered bye-laws of the appellant-Societies .

Rule 3-A (8) takes away the vested rights conferred

upon the members of the society . The conferment of

power upon the Collector for carving out

delimitations of a Specified Co-operative

Society/Societies is contrary to the provisions of

the Act and Rules and asking the Chief Executive

Officer to prepare the draft constituencies by

dividing the area of societies into constituencies

would amount to taking away the right of its members

to exercise their vote in favour of all the

candidates who contest from the constituencies.

Therefore, the interpretation given to Section 3-A

(8) of the Rules and upholding the constitutional

validity in conferring such power upon the Collector

to demark the constituencies of appellant societies

infringes the rights of the members of the societies.

Hence, it is contended that the impugned judgment is

liable to be set aside.

15. The State Government has filed its counter

affidavit justifying the impugned judgment contending

that the findings and reasons recorded by the full

Page 14 14

Bench of the Gujarat High Court by answering the

questions referred to it are in accordance with law

and the same are on proper interpretation of the

relevant Rules 3-A (8) and (9) and Rule 43 of the

Rules which are in conformity with Chapter XI-A of

the Act.

16.On a careful examination of Rule 3-A (8) of the

Rules by us, it is made clear that the said provision

is aimed at geographical i.e. territory or zone wise

bifurcation or division. A salient feature of the

Rule 3-A is the delimitation of the constituencies

which includes all specified cooperative societies.

Once the area of operation of any society is more

than one village, Sub rule (8) would come into play

and the requirement of the number of constituencies

would be equal to the total number of seats,

excluding two seats reserved for the categories as

provided under section 74 B of the Act.

17.Further, the language of sub rule (9) of Rule 3-

A, makes it clear that the Rule Making Authority has

graced the Collector with the power to delimit the

constituency/constituencies prior to the publication

Page 15 15

of the voters list. The delimitation of the

constituency/constituencies should be prior to the

preparation of the voters’ list and/or in any case

simultaneous with the preparation of voters’ list but

the voters list has to be as per the delimitation of

the constituencies. The same is the case when the

delimitation of the constituency is required to be

made by the Collector prior to the publication of the

list of voters.

18.Thus, when sub-rule (8) is read along with sub-

rule (9) of Rule 3-A, where the society has the area

of operation exceeding one village, even if the bye

laws provide for single constituency, the seats

provided by the bye laws has to be equal to the

number of constituency/constituencies and therefore,

for each seat, a separate constituency would be

required to be delimited and if not so delimited by

the society, of its own, it would be required for the

Collector to exercise his power under sub rule (9) of

Rule 3-A of the Rules for the delimitation of the

constituency in accordance with the mandate of sub

rule (8) of Rule 3-A and thereafter, the process for

Page 16 16

publication of the voters’ list is to be given effect

to.

19.The power conferred with the Collector for the

delimitation of the constituency under sub rule (9)

is independent and separate and only applicable in

the case when the election of the members of any

Management Committee of specified society is

scheduled to be held. Further, as specified in the

sub rule (9) of Rule 3-A, such powers are to be

exercised by the Collector, notwithstanding anything

contained in the bye laws of such society. The

Collector has to exercise the power for delimitation

of the constituencies prior to the publication of the

list of voters. Further, as rightly stated by the

High Court in the impugned judgment that when a

specific power is conferred in a specific contingency

to a different authority, such power has to be read

in addition to the general power for the amendment in

the bye-laws. Thus, the bye laws of any society have

to be in conformity with the provisions of the Act

and the Rules.

20.It is obligatory on the part of any specified

Page 17 17

society to bring about the amendment in its

registered bye-laws in conformity with the

provisions of the Rules and more particularly

Rule 3-A (8) and (9). But if the society/societies

have not amended their bye laws, the same has to be

in conformity with the said Rules by getting suitably

amended; the effect of the Rule would not stand

nullified or inoperable. For this purpose sub rule

(9) gives the power to the Collector to delimit the

constituency/constituencies of a society. Thus, once

the area of operation of any society exceeds more

than one village as per sub rule (8), the number of

constituencies is required to be bifurcated by the

Collector in exercise of his power, so as to make it

equal to the total number of seats to see that

effective representation is given to the members of

the society for giving fair representation to its

members to elect their true representatives to

participate in the affairs of the Society as part of

the Managing Committee Members, as the society must

be represented by its elected representatives in a

democratic process to effectively represent in the

Page 18 18

Managing Committee which is an indispensible

parameter for the democratic institutions to achieve

the laudable object of Co-operative movement in the

country, which is the constitutional philosophy as

enshrined in Chapter XI A of the Constitution, which

has been inserted by way of constitutional

amendment.

21.Thus, the bye laws of any specified society

under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies

Act cannot be permitted to prevail over the statutory

Rule 3-A (8) & (9) of the Rules. The moment the area

of operation of any specified society exceeds one

village, sub rule (8) would come into play,

irrespective of the fact that whether members of such

society constitute homogenous group or heterogeneous

group.

22.Further, the elections to either the Managing

Committee or Board must be held democratically by

giving representation to all its members, as stated

in the preamble of our Constitution, which is held to

be the basic feature of the Constitution by the

constitutional Bench of this Court in the cases of

Page 19 19

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of

Kerala

7

and Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India

8

. Under

Article 13 (2) of the Constitution of India, Rules

are also regarded as laws. However, the Rules and

laws framed by the State Legislatures and the

appropriate government cannot run parallel with the

principles of the Constitution and the statutory

objects of the Co-operative Societies Act cannot be

disregard as it would defeat the purpose of Section

243ZK of the Constitution of India (Ninety-Seventh

Amendment) Act 2011, inserted as per the 97

th

Constitutional Amendment, which provides for election

of the members of the Managing Committee or Board. If

the rules provide

that not more than 7 representatives can be elected

from a specified Co-operative Society to the Board or

Management Committee, then it is the duty of the

societies to adhere to it and not exceed the

specified number. Thus, the bye laws of a Co-

operative Society, in order to achieve the

constitutional object, must be brought at par with

7

(1973) 4 SCC 225

8

(2006)7 SCC 1

Page 20 20

the laws and statutory provisions of the Societies

Act. They cannot override the provisions of State or

Central laws. In Kuldip Nayar’s case (supra), this

Court after referring to various Constitutional Bench

judgments and other judgments of this Court for the

purpose of interpretation made by this Court in

relation to phrases used in the Preamble of the

Constitution of India such as “sovereign democratic

republic” and “Parliamentary democracy” as the basic

feature of the Constitution of India, held as under:-

“101. In the same case ( Indira Nehru Gandhi

case, reported in 1975 Supp SCC 1),

Chandrachud, J. in para 691 of his separate

judgment ruled as under: (SCC pp. 261-62)

“Ordinary laws have to answer two

tests for their validity: (1) The law

must be within the legislative

competence of the legislature as

defined and specified in Chapter I,

Part XI of the Constitution, and (2)

it must not offend against the

provisions of Articles 13(1) and (2)

of the Constitution. ‘Basic

structure’, by the majority judgment,

is not a part of the fundamental

rights nor indeed a provision of the

Constitution. The theory of basic

structure is woven out of the

conspectus of the Constitution and

the amending power is subjected to it

because it is a constituent power.

‘The power to amend the fundamental

instrument cannot carry with it the

Page 21 21

power to destroy its essential

features’—this, in brief, is the arch

of the theory of basic structure. It

is wholly out of place in matters

relating to the validity of ordinary

laws made under the Constitution.”

XXX XXX XXX

142. Article 80(4) prescribes the manner

of voting and election of the

representatives of States for the Council

of States in the following terms:

“80. (4) The representatives of each

State in the Council of States shall

be elected by the elected Members of

the Legislative Assembly of the State

in accordance with the system of

proportional representation by means

of the single transferable vote.”

XXX XXX XXX

336. In the words of Jaganmohan Reddy, J.

(Kesavananda Bharati case reported in (1973)

4 SCC 225) in his separate judgment, the

1“elements of the basic structure are

indicated in the Preamble and translated in

the various provisions of the Constitution”

and the “edifice of our Constitution is

built upon and stands on several props”

which, if removed would result in the

Constitution collapsing and which include

the principles of “sovereign democratic

republic” and “parliamentary democracy”, a

polity which is “based on a representative

system in which people holding opposing view

to one another can be candidates and invite

the electorate to vote for them” (SCC p.

638, para 1159).

341. Some of the important holdings were

set down in para 92 of the aforementioned

(Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election

Page 22 22

Commr. reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405)

judgment “for convenience” and to

“synopsise the formulations”. The holdings

included the following: (SCC p. 452)

“92. ( 2)(a) The Constitution

contemplates a free and fair

election and vests comprehensive

responsibilities of superintendence,

direction and control of the conduct

of elections in the Election

Commission. This responsibility may

cover powers, duties and functions of

many sorts, administrative or other,

depending on the circumstances.

(b) Two limitations at least are laid

on its plenary character in the

exercise thereof. Firstly, when

Parliament or any State Legislature

has made valid law relating to or in

connection with elections, the

Commission, shall act in conformity

with, not in violation of, such

provisions but where such law is

silent Article 324 is a reservoir of

power to act for the avowed purpose

of, not divorced from, pushing

forward a free and fair election

with expedition . Secondly, the

Commission shall be responsible to

the rule of law, act bona fide and be

amenable to the norms of natural

justice insofar as conformance to

such canons can reasonably and

realistically be required of it as

fairplay-in-action in a most

important area of the constitutional

order viz. elections. Fairness does

import an obligation to see that no

wrongdoer candidate benefits by his

own wrong. To put the matter beyond

doubt, natural justice enlivens and

applies to the specific case of order

Page 23 23

for total re-poll, although not in

full panoply but in flexible

practicability. Whether it has been

complied with is left open for the

Tribunal’s adjudication.”

343. The case Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu

(reported in (1992 Supp (2) SCC 651) also

resulted in similar views being reiterated by

this Court in the following words: (SCC p.

741, para 179)

“179. Democracy is a part of the

basic structure of our

Constitution; and rule of law, and

free and fair elections are basic

features of democracy . One of the

postulates of free and fair

elections is provision for

resolution of election disputes as

also adjudication of disputes

relating to subsequent

disqualifications by an independent

authority.”

(emphasis laid by this Court)

In Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India

9

, this

Court has held as under:-

“229. Lord Greene said in 1948 in the

famous Wednesbury case (reported in (1948)

1 KB 223) that when a statute gave

discretion to an administrator to take a

decision, the scope of judicial review

would remain limited. He said that

interference was not permissible unless

one or the other of the following

conditions was satisfied, namely the order

was contrary to law, or relevant factors

were not considered, or irrelevant factors

were considered; or the decision was one

9

(2006) 2 SCC 1

Page 24 24

which no reasonable person could have

taken…….

257. Therefore, the well-recognised

position in law is that purity in the

electoral process and the conduct of the

elected representatives cannot be isolated

from the constitutional requirements.

“Democracy” and “free and fair election”

are inseparable twins. There is almost an

inseverable umbilical cord joining them.

In a democracy the little man—voter has

overwhelming importance and cannot be

hijacked from the course of free and fair

elections……”.

(emphasis laid by this Court)

In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr.

10

,

this Court has held as under:-

“2. Every significant case has an

unwritten legend and indelible lesson.

This appeal is no exception, whatever its

formal result. The message, as we will see

at the end of the decision, relates to the

pervasive philosophy of democratic

elections which Sir Winston Churchill

vivified in matchless, words:

“At the bottom of all tributes

paid to democracy is the little

man, walking into a little

booth, with a little pencil,

making a little cross on a

little bit of paper — no amount

of rhetoric or voluminous

discussion can possibly diminish

the overwhelming importance of

the point.”

23. Democracy is government by the people.

It is a continual participative operation,

not a cataclysmic, periodic exercise. The

10

(1978) 1 SCC 405

Page 25 25

little man, in his multitude, marking his

vote at the poll does a social audit of

his Parliament plus political choice of

this proxy. Although the full flower of

participative Government rarely blossoms,

the minimum credential of popular

Government is appeal to the people after

every term for a renewal of confidence. So

we have adult franchise and general

elections as constitutional compulsions.

“The right of election is the very essence

of the constitution” (Junius). It needs

little argument to hold that the heart of

the Parliamentary system is free and fair

elections periodically held, based on

adult franchise, although social and

economic democracy may demand much more.

46. It is an interesting sidelight that in

America it has been held to be but

fundamental fairness that the right to an

administrative hearing is given. Natural

justice is being given access to the

United Nations. It is notable that Mathew,

J. observed in Indira Gandhi (p. 513, see

p. 128, para 303) (reported in 1975 Supp

SCC 1):

“If the amending body really

exercised judicial power, that

power was exercised in violation

of the principles of natural

justice of audi alteram partem .

Even if a power is given to a

body without specifying that the

rules of natural justice should

be observed in exercising it,

the nature of the power would

call for its observance…………”

(emphasis laid by this Court)

In view of the law laid down by this Court in the

Page 26 26

aforesaid cases, we have to hold that the sub rules

(8) & (9) of Rule 3-A are applicable to the appellant

society/Societies as the area of operation is more

than one village and therefore the orders passed by

the Collector for the delimitation of the

constituency/constituencies cannot be said to be

illegal. Further, we hold that there will be no

proper representation of the voters to their

respective specified societies for electing

representatives of their area which would materially

affect the result of the election and the impugned

provisions and Rules are legally justifiable.

For the reasons stated supra, no relief can be

granted in favour of the appellant-societies by

setting aside the election notification and the

prayer for setting aside the impugned judgement and

orders. Hence, they deserve to be dismissed. The

respondents are directed to hold the election to the

specified societies as per sub rule (8) and (9) of

Rule 3-A of the Rules as are applicable to them under

the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act after the

delimitation of the constituency/constituencies of

Page 27 27

such societies are made by the Collector as stated

under sub-rule (9) of Rule 3-A of the Rules.

23.For the reasons stated supra, we do not find any

reasons whatsoever to interfere with the impugned

judgment and orders of the High Court. It is needless

to make observation that the State government and its

officers could not give effect to the provisions of

the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules for some

time on account of which some of the societies have

challenged the impugned provisions and Rules before

the High Court, even after litigation was concluded

by the Division Bench at one stage, the State and its

officers have not implemented the impugned provisions

and Rules without any valid reasons. The members of

the specified societies in the State have a right to

elect their true representatives to represent them as

Managing Committee or Board members of the District

Co-operative Societies and other allied societies

after de-limitation of the constituency/

constituencies and therefore, we direct them to see

that the impugned provisions and Rules must be

implemented forthwith without further delay and

Page 28 28

submit compliance report within 8 weeks from the date

of report of the copy of this order.

24. The appeals are dismissed. No Costs.

…………………………………………………………… J.

[V. GOPALA GOWDA]

…………………………………………………………… J.

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]

New Delhi,

November 19, 2014

Page 29 29

ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment COURT NO.11 SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No(s). 26017/2013

RAJKOT DISTT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 13201-13202/2012

C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 12219-12222/2012

C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 29726/2013

C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 27573/2013

C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 29727/2013

C.A.NO............/2014 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 29728/2013

Date : 19/11/2014 These appeals was called on for JUDGMENT today.

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Mohit D. Ram,Adv.

M/s. Khaitan & Co.

Mr. Devendra Singh,Adv.

Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv.

Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.

Ms. Pratibha Jain,Adv.

Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv.

Mr. Vikash Singh,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the

judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble

Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.

Leave granted.

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed

judgment.

(VINOD KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)