Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
6. The writ petitions were heard by the High Court leading to the impugned Judgment dated 02.03.2017. The Division Bench was of the view that the disputes raised in the writ petitions were fit to be tried as an election dispute under Section 69 of the Act and hence, declined to consider the contentions on merits. The operative portion of the impugned Judgment reads as follows :- “11. We therefore relegate the petitioners to the alternate statutory remedy available under Section 69(3) of the Act wherein all the factual and legal issues could be gone into. It is pointed out that a dispute arising in connection with the election should be raised within one month from the date of election as per the Act. But we notice that the election to the Managing Committee of the bank was held subject to the result of the writ petitions only by virtue of the interim order. Therefore it is clarified that any dispute raised in connection with the election to the Managing Committee of the bank within one month from today shall be dealt with as per law. What exactly should be the arrangement in the meanwhile is the further question since more than three months have elapsed since the conduct of election. The Supreme Court has permitted the Managing Committee to perform the day-to-day work on provisional basis without taking any policy decision. We make it clear that the status quo as ordered by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.12.2016 shall hold the field till the culmination of the dispute.” Contextually, it is also significant to note that even in the interim order dated 01.11.2016, the Court had taken the view that certain disputes regarding the eligibility, infractions, if any, of Sections 16A and 19A of the Act etc. are all subject matter of the Statutory dispute under Section 69 of the Act.
7. It may be noted that the election had already been conducted on 05.11.2016. Under Section 69(3) of the Act, “No dispute arising in connection with the election of the Board of Management or an officer of the society shall be entertained by the Cooperative Arbitration Court unless it is referred to it within one month from the date of the election.”
8. The Division Bench, however, was of the view that since the writ petitioners had approached the High Court prior to the election and since by way of an interim order, the election was permitted to be conducted as scheduled making it subject to the result of the writ petitions and also Section 69 of the Act, it is only appropriate that while relegating the parties to the Arbitration Court trying the election dispute, a further period of thirty days be granted.
9. Whether, in view of the statutory period prescribed under Section 69(3), the High Court could have extended the period, is the question.
10. Article 243ZK of the Constitution of India, which provides for Election of Members to the Managing Committee of a Cooperative Society, reads as follows :- REJI THOMAS & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [KURIAN, J.] “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law made by the Legislature of a State, the election of a board shall be conducted before the expiry of the term of the board so as to ensure that the newly elected members of the board assume office immediately on the expiry of the office of members of the outgoing board. (2) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to a co-operative society shall vest in such an authority or body, as may be provided by the Legislature of a State, by law: Provided that the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide for the procedure and guidelines for the conduct of such elections.”
11. Section 69 of the Act is the mechanism provided by the State Legislature as contemplated under Article 243 ZK (2) of the Constitution of India. Once the mechanism provided under the Statute provides for a time schedule for preferring an election petition, in the absence of a provision in the Statute for enlarging the time under any given circumstances, no court, whether the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32, 136 or 142 of the Constitution can extend the period in election matters. In the matter of limitation in election cases, the Court has to adopt strict interpretation of the provisions. This Court in Smita Subhash Sawant Vs. Jagdeeshwari Jagdish Amin & Ors. reported in (2015) 12 SCC 169, though in a different context, has held at paragraph 33 that “In the absence of any provision made in the Act for condoning the delay in filing the election petition, the Chief Judge had no power to condone the delay in filing the election petition beyond the period of limitation prescribed in law”.
12. In Union of India & Anr. vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. reported in (1996) 4 SCC 453, at paragraph 10, this Court has held as under :- “…….The power conferred by Articles 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law. In particular, the Customs authorities, who are the creature of the Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or act contrary to Section 27, whether before or after amendment. Maybe the High Court or a civil court is not bound by the said provisions but the authorities under the Act are. Nor can there be any question of the High Court clothing the authorities with its power under Article 226 or the power of a civil court. No such delegation or conferment can ever be conceived.”
13. It has also to be noted that while passing the interim order dated 01.11.2016, the High Court had specifically noted that the same was subject to the writ petitions and also Section 69 of the Act.
14. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the matters need to be considered afresh by the High Court since the Court could not have relegated the parties to the alternative remedy under the Statute by enlarging the time for preferring the election dispute. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment to that extent is set aside. The writ petitions are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. It will be open to the parties to raise all available contentions before the High Court. We request the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions expeditiously.
15. We make it clear that till the writ petitions are disposed of by the High Court, the interim arrangement made by this Court in the Judgment dated 05.12.2016 will continue. These appeals are disposed of as above. SLP (C) Nos. 16136-16140 of 2017, 25720 of 2017, 30308-30312 of 2017 and 9858 of 2018 In view of the Judgment passed above, these Special Leave Petitions are also disposed of. Ankit Gyan Matters disposed of. REJI THOMAS & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [KURIAN, J.]