Some of the directors of these societies had resigned, rendering the board without the requisite quorum. This necessitated new elections.
Published Jan 12, 2024 | 10:52 AM ⚊ Updated Jan 12, 2024 | 10:52 AM
Karnataka High Court. (Creative Commons)
The High Court of Karnataka has answered in the affirmative to the question: “Whether upon the resignation of a few members of the Board of a Society, elections are required to be held to the posts of all directors, including the posts of directors who have not tendered their resignations?”
The affirmative answer was arrived at by Justice CM Poonacha in a batch of petitions which were disposed of in a common order on 5 January.
Some elected directors of the Sakkaregollahalli Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamita, Halaganahalli Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society and the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, Kudhuvalli had approached the high court in this regard.
Some of the directors of these societies had resigned, rendering the board without the requisite quorum. This necessitated new elections in the societies.
Special officers were appointed by the Registrar of Societies to run these societies. The directors who had not resigned approached the court challenging this and contending that since their tenure was not over, they should be allowed to continue.
The court, pointing to the rules under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, said: “It is relevant to note that in Section 31(1) of the Act there is a specific non-obstinate clause which specifically stipulates that the registrar may notwithstanding anything contained in this act, rules or bye-laws’ by order appoint a special officer.”
When such a special officer is appointed, the elected directors automatically lose their posts, the HC noted.
“Section 31(3) of the Act stipulates on the issue of the order under sub Section (1) the members of the Board shall vacate’ and ‘shall be deemed to have vacated offices’ and the special officer shall be deemed to have assumed the charge of the affairs of the cooperative society,” the Karnataka High Court said.
The counsel for the petitioners contend that the situation that is arising in the present cases is a deliberate attempt by a few persons to hold elections to the entire board although the petitioners have already been elected, and an interpretation is to be adopted which does not create an anomalous situation of holding of repeated elections merely due to exigencies created out of political or other compulsions.
The court, however, noted that Section 31(1) and (3) of the Act has to be applied to the facts of this case.
Dismissing the petitions, the court said, “It is clear that consequent to a situation occurring as contemplated in Section 31(1) of the Act and a special officer being appointed, having regard to the specific wordings contained in Section 31(3) of the Act, the said situation would automatically occur and the question of exercising any discretion as sought to be contended by the petitioners does not arise.”
(Disclaimer: The headline, subheads, and intro of this report along with the photos may have been reworked by South First. The rest of the content is from a syndicated feed, and has been edited for style.)
