Muniappa vs Tahsildar and Returning Officer

Jagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.

Several contentions were urged in this appeal, but we do not want to consider all of them. The one and the only contention which according to us deserves consideration is as to the scope or inter-action of Explanations 1 and 2 to the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. They read :

"1. A non-borrower member means a member who till 30 days before the date on which election is held has not borrowed any money from the Bank at any time.

A borrower member means, a member who has borrowed any loan from the Bank at any time and includes a member who has borrowed and repaid."

Explanation 1 deals with a non-borrower. Explanation 2 deals with a borrower. Each category of persons has a separate representation in the Board of Directors of the society. One shall not trespass the realm of others.

Learned Single Judge after going into the merits of the matter has held that the appellant has not borrowed any money from the bank till 30 days before the date of election and therefore he should be categorised as a non-borrower. Accordingly, the order accepting the nomination of the appellant for election from borrowers'' constituency has been quashed.

The question really turns on the meaning to be assigned to the words ''non-borrower'' and ''borrower''. Under Explanation 1, a non-borrower means a member who till 30 days before the date on which election is held has not borrowed any money from the Bank. In other words, if a member has not borrowed any money from the bank till 30 days before the date of election, he should be categorised as a non-borrower.

When we come to the word ''borrower'' set out under Explanation 2, it is seen that a borrower is one who has borrowed any loan from the bank at any time and includes a member who has borrowed and repaid. No time has been specified for borrowing. Does it mean that a non-borrower who falls within the Explanation 1, would also fall under Explanation 2 if he borrows within 30 days of the date of election. We do not think so. These two explanations are mutually exclusive and deal with two different categories of persons. ''At any time'' under Explanation 2 does not mean within 30 days of the date of election. A non-borrower under Explanation 1 cannot be categorised as a borrower under Explanation 2 if he borrows any money from the bank after the period prescribed under Explanation 1.

The view taken by the learned Judge is correct aid does not call for interference.

With regard to other contentions raised, we express no opinion.

Appeal, therefore, is rejected.