Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, members of respondent no.3 society, challenged the election program dated 12.02.2010 which reserved only one seat for women on the Board of Directors, despite the Board having 13 members. They argued that under Section 73BBB(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, if the Board consists of 10 or more members, two seats must be reserved for women. The respondents contended that the bye-law no.9 of the society provided for only one woman representative, and thus the proviso to sub-section (2) or the explanation to sub-section (1) reduced the requirement to one seat. The court examined the interplay between sub-section (1), its explanation, and sub-section (2) with its proviso. It held that the proviso to sub-section (2) applies only when the bye-laws provide for a larger number of women representatives than specified in sub-section (1), which was not the case here. The explanation to sub-section (1) applies only when the total number of seats is less than the minimum required for reservation, which was also not the case. Therefore, sub-section (1)(b) squarely applied, mandating two reserved seats. The court allowed the petition, quashed the election program, and directed the respondents to conduct fresh elections with two seats reserved for women.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Societies - Reservation for Women - Section 73BBB Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - Interpretation of Proviso and Explanation - The court considered whether the proviso to Section 73BBB(2) or the explanation to Section 73BBB(1) determines the number of reserved seats for women. The Board had 13 members; the election program reserved only one seat for women. The court held that since the bye-laws provided for only one woman representative, the proviso to sub-section (2) was not attracted, and the explanation to sub-section (1) did not apply. Therefore, sub-section (1)(b) mandated two reserved seats. (Paras 1-8)
B) Cooperative Societies - Mandatory Nature of Reservation - Section 73BBB Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - Reliance on Saralabai Arjun Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra (1993 Mh.L.J. 1127) - The court reiterated that the provisions of Section 73BBB are mandatory. Failure to provide reservation as per the section vitiates the election. (Paras 3, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether under Section 73BBB of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the number of seats reserved for women on the Board of Directors of a society with 13 members is two (as per sub-section (1)(b)) or one (as per the explanation to sub-section (1) read with proviso to sub-section (2)).
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the election program dated 12.02.2010, and directed the respondents to conduct fresh elections in accordance with Section 73BBB of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, with two seats reserved for women.
Law Points
- Statutory interpretation
- Reservation for women
- Cooperative societies
- Mandatory provisions
- Non obstante clause
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 135
Writ Petition No. 1324 of 2010
Shri S.S. Ghate for petitioners; Shri Kankale, Learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2; Shri S.Y. Deopujari for Respondent No.3
Smt. Yewantabai w/o Tansen Patle and Laxman s/o Tulsiram Khobragade
The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gondia; Election Officer, Vividh Karyakari Sewa Sahakari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Wadegaon; Vividh Karyakari Sewa Sahakari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Wadegaon through its Manager
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging election program of a cooperative society for not providing adequate reservation for women as per statutory mandate.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the election program and direction to conduct fresh elections with two seats reserved for women.
Filing Reason
The election program dated 12.02.2010 reserved only one seat for women on the Board of Directors of respondent no.3 society, whereas the Board had 13 members, requiring two reserved seats under Section 73BBB(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Issues
Whether the proviso to Section 73BBB(2) or the explanation to Section 73BBB(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 reduces the number of reserved seats for women from two to one when the bye-laws provide for only one woman representative.
Whether the election program reserving only one seat for women is valid.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that Section 73BBB(1)(b) mandates two reserved seats for women when the Board has 10 or more members (here 13). The bye-law providing for one woman representative does not attract the proviso to sub-section (2) because that proviso applies only when bye-laws provide for a larger number. The explanation to sub-section (1) also does not apply because the total number of seats is not less than the minimum required.
Respondents (State) contended that the reservation as per Section 73BBB already exists and the election program is not vitiated. They argued that the issue raised was not covered by the Division Bench judgment in Saralabai.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 73BBB(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, if the Board of Directors consists of 10 or more members, two seats must be reserved for women. The proviso to sub-section (2) applies only when the bye-laws provide for a larger number of women representatives than specified in sub-section (1). The explanation to sub-section (1) applies only when the total number of seats is less than the minimum required for reservation. Since the Board had 13 members and the bye-law provided for only one woman representative, neither the proviso nor the explanation was attracted, and two seats were mandatory.
Judgment Excerpts
Short question raised by Shri S.S. Ghate, learned counsel for petitioners in this petition is – Whether because of proviso to Section 73 BBB [2] of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 the number of seats reserved for women on Board of Directors of respondent no.3 Society has to be 2 or then because of requirement of explanation to subsection [1] thereof, it can be only 1.
It is apparent that the issue urged by Shri Ghate, learned counsel for petitioner did not fall for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench in the above judgment. The said judgment shows that provisions of Section 73BBB are mandatory.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed challenging the election program dated 12.02.2010. By consent of parties, the matter was heard finally at the admission stage and rule was made returnable forthwith.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960: 73BBB
