TMI Blog1960 (1) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der bye-law No. 11 the management of the Central Bank shall vest in a Board consisting of several persons of whom delegates from several constituencies shall also form part. One such constituency is styled as ' Audit Union and Urban Banks affiliated to the Central Bank'. Bye-law No. 11, Clause (2), provides as follows: ... The election of these representatives shall be held at separate meetings composed exclusively of the delegates of the respective classes of societies and specially convened for the purpose from among themselves. The President of the Central Bank shall preside over such meetings, and he shall have no right to vote unless he is a delegate from any of the types of societies referred to. In the event of an equality of votes the matter shall be decided on the spot, by the casting of lots 3. For the purposes of the present case what need be noted is that each of the constituencies mentioned in bye-law No. 11, Clause (2), has a right to send a delegate to the Board of Management of the Central Bank and the mode of choosing such delegate shall be by election as amongst delegates of each such constituency. 4. Bye-law No. 14 is as follows: The entire ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Coimbatore City Co-operative Bank, Ltd., had its delegate in one Dr. T.V. Sivanadam. The Cobichettipalayam Co-operative Urban Bank, Ltd., elected as a delegate one P.K. Muthuvelappa Goundar at its general meeting held on 18th October, 1959 and forwarded his name and a copy of the resolution appointing him to the Central Bank by its letter, dated 19th October, 1959. This was received by the Central Bank on 20th October, 1959. It must be mentioned that the printed voters' list of the Central Bank published in the notice board on 20th October, 1959, contained the name of one S.K. Subramanialyer alias Vembu Iyer as the delegate appertaining to the Gobi Co-operative Urban Bank, Ltd. But by a subsequent correction of the voters' list, presumably after the receipt of the name of the fresh delegate, P.K. Muthuvelappa Goundar, the voters' list was corrected substituting his name in the place of the old delegate. 7. In respect of the constituency of 'the Audit Union and Urban Bank' the two delegates, P.K. Muthuvelappa Goundar, the delegate of the Gobi Co-operative Urban Bank, Ltd., and Dr. T.V. Sivanandam, the delegate of the Coimbatore City Co-operative Urabn Bank, Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been accepted by the President of the Central Bank. The main reason of the Deputy Registrar in reaching that conclusion was his view that there was a contravention of the election rules by reason of Muthuvelappa's name as delegate having been received on 20th October, 1959. The following extract from his order clearly reveals the basis of his order: I therefore find that the inclusion of the name of the third respondent (P.K. Muthuvelappa Goundar) as a delegate of the Gobichettipalayam Co-operative Urban Bank, Ltd., on 20th October, 1959, in the delegates' list of the Coimbatore District Co-operative Central Bank, Ltd., Coimbatore, though may be right or proper under the Bye-law 33-A or Rule 10-A of the rules framed under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act (VI of 1932) for revising the list of voters 30 days prior to the date of election of this Bank, (the date of election of the Bank being 5th December, 1959) the accepting of the nomination to stand as a candidature for the election is invalid and contrary to the rules framed by the Board. I therefore declare that the selection or approval by the second respondent as presiding Officer of the 3rd respondent as a candi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) is complied with. The dispute, if any, can equally be brought within Section 51, Clause (b). The only contention urged by the learned Advocate-General, who appeared for the petitioner in this case was that the dispute now between the parties, namely, the validity of the nomination, of one of the candidates is not a dispute touching the business of a registered society. His contention is that though the election of directors as such will constitute a dispute touching the business of a registered society, if the election is impugned by anybody as held by a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Madhava Row v. Surya Rao (1953) 2 M.L.J. 340 : I.L.R. (1953) Mad. 1047 (F.B.) the stage of nomination is different and to that stage the principle of the Full Bench decision is not applicable. Mr. P.S. Kailasam, appearing for the contesting respondent (the second respondent) contended that the principle of the Full Bench decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and cannot be distinguished in the manner submitted by the learned Advocate-General. It is only necessary for me to examine the scope of the said Full Bench ruling as all the cases on the subject have been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) 1 M.L.J. (S.C.), of the Supreme Court observed as follows: ... the word ' election ' can be and has been appropriately used with reference to the entire process which consists of several stages and embraces many steps, some of which may have an important bearing on the result of the process. I am of opinion that the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision fully applies to the facts of the present case, and that therefore the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies was rightly invoked under Section 51 of the Act. 16. The next question that has to be considered is as regards the nature of Clause (4) of the election rules, which has already been set out. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that it should not be construed as mandatory entailing forfeiture of rights especially when there are no words in the said rules prescribing the consequence of a failure to comply with the said rules. The contention on behalf of the second respondent is that having regard to the word 'shall' which is contained in the clause it must be held to be mandatory carrying with it the inevitable deprivation of the rights of persons who do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Courts of Justice to try to get at the real intention of the Legislature by carefully, attending to the whole scope of the statute to be construed. In Howard v. Bodington L.R. (1877) 2 Pro. Div. 203 at 311, Lord Penzance made the following observation: I believe, as far as any rule is concerned, you cannot safely go further than that in each case you must look to the subjet-matter, consider the importance of the provision and the relation of that provision to the general object intended to be secured by the Act, and upon a review of the case in that aspect decide whether the enactment is what is called imperative or only directory... I have been very carefully through all principal cases but upon reading them all the conclusion at which I am constrained to arrive is this, that you cannot glean a great deal that is very decisive from a perusal of these cases. They are on all sorts of subjects. It is very difficult to group them together and the tendency of my mind after reading them is to come to the conclusion which was expressed by Lord Campbell in the case of the Liverpool Bank v. Turner. The primary thing to be considered is of course the language of the enactment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proceeding, would be invalid. Provisions fixing the time for performance of acts are ordinarily held directory where there are no words prohibiting the doing of the thing after the time specified and there is no penalty for the delay. Maxwell on ' Interpretation of Statutes', 10th Edition at page 381, states the law thus: To hold that an Act which required an officer to prepare and deliver to another officer a list of voters on or before a certain day, under a penalty, made a list not delivered till a later day invalid would in effect, put it in the pdwer of the person charged with the duty of preparing it to disfranchise the electors, a conclusion too unreasonable for acceptance. Reference may again be made to Crawford on Statutory Construction at page 535: As a general rule a statute which specifies a time for the purposes of an official duty will be considered as directory so far as the time for performance is concerned especially when the statute fixes the time simply for convenient or orderly procedure. At page 536, it is stated thus: Further more it may be assessed as a general rule that where a statute imposes upon the public officer the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before 1st July of the election year will not be included in the list of voters. Societies which fail to observe this procedure will lose their privi* lege of partaking in the election of directors to the Bank. Such a clause is significantly omitted in the rules now governing the election to die Board of Management of the Central Bank. 23. I hold that clause (4) of the election rules fixing a time-limit for return of the delegates of the several constituencies is merely a directory provision for the convenience of orderly election and cannot and was not intended to operate as a deadline preventing the Central Bank from recognising and accepting delegates beyond that time and consequently disfranchising the member society from participating in the delegates election. My reasons are : (1) the language of the clause is affimative and it is not reasonable to include in it an implied negative to the effect that non-compliance thereof will result in total forfeiture of rights regarding the delegates elecion; (ii) till the year 1956 the election rules contained a clause prp-viding for forfeiture of rights in. respect of late comers, but such a clause is absent in the rules now gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the return of delegates as being merely directory. In my opinion the provisions of Bye-law 33-A constitute another indication as to the mode of construction of Clause (4) of the election rules. 26. A point was raised before me on behalf of the contesting respondent that the voters' list was not corrected so as to include the name of Muthuvellappa Goundar on the crucial date, namely, the date of filing the nomination. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that the voters' list was corrected on 20th October; 1959, after the receipt by the Central Bank of the communication from the Gopichettipalyam Co-operative Urban Bank. The Secretary of the Central Bank deposed before the Deputy Registrar as follows :--. A list of delegates to the Bank was prepared on 10th October, 1959, by me as per the subsidiary regulations. Even after 10th October, 1959, names of some delegates were received. They were included in a revised list as per Bye-law 33-AThe first list was prepared on 12th October, 1959, as 10th and 1 ith were public holidays. In my view the revised list is the final list. He further deposed, on being cross-examined as,follows: The names of delegates who ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner had a remedy by way of revision to the Registrar under Section 51(5) of the Madras Act (VI of 1932), and that remedy being adequate and effective to redress his grievance, if any, ought to have been availed of by him before resorting to this Court. The learned Counsel pointed out that the existence of an alternative remedy, equally convenient, beneficial or effective, is a ground for refusing the discretionary relief of a certiorari. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rashi Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission (1954) S.C.J. 264: (1954) S.C.R. 738 (S.C.), and JV.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Mainar and Ors. (1959) 2 M.LJ. 48. The availability of other remedies to the aggrieved party may weigh with the Court in refusing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution but cannot disentitle him to get the relief or preclude the Court from issuing the writ. I am of opinion that however convenient or expedient it may be to dismiss a writ petition before issuing rule nisi oh the ground of a subsisting alternative remedy, it may not always be just to do so at the final stage, when the parties have incurred all the expenses and the Court has gone into the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
