Raju John vs The Asst. Registrar of Co - op. Societies and Others

K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.—The petitioner is an employee of the Thopramkudi Pepper Processing and Marketing Society Ltd., for short ''The Society'', having its office within the jurisdiction of Udumbanchola Circle Co-operative Union. The election to this circle co-operative union, going by the Notification issued in that regard, was scheduled, to be held on 21-10-1990. The names of the employees of this society who had been included in the provisional voters list however were deleted while preparing the final voters list on the ground that the society failed to renew its affiliation to the Circle Co-operative Union. Having come to know of this, the petitioner has moved this O. P. for the following reliefs :-

a. a writ of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ quashing all proceedings for holding election to the Udumbanchola Circle Cooperative Union as proposed by Ext. P1;

b. declare that all employees of the co-operative societies within the jurisdiction of the circle union are entitled to be voters and non-affiliation or refusal to renew cannot be a ground for excluding them from the voters list:

and

c. be further pleased to issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case".

It is necessary at this stage to state the law governing the election to the Circle Co-operative Union and the, right of the parties to exercise their franchise. A reference in this connection to Section 88 of the Co. operative Societies Act and Rule 126 of the Co-operative Societies Rules is relevant. Section 88 (1) provides that each Circle Co-operative Union shall have 13 members made up of in the following manner: nine members elected by the committees of the societies within the circle, one member elected by the Board of Directors of the District Co-operative Bank having jurisdiction over the circle, two members elected by the employees -of co-operative societies within the circle and the senior most Inspector of Co-operative Societies in the circle. Of these 13 members, the senior-most Inspector of Co-operative Societies in the circle will be ex-officio member. Sub-section 2 of Section 88 says that a circle co-operative union is bound to elect one of the members, other than the ex-officio member, to be its chairman and the ex-officio member shall be its Secretary (vide sub-section 3 of Section 88). The employees of the co-operative societies within the circle therefore have the right to elect two members,

This right to elect, according to the counsel for the petitioner, includes the right to contest the election also. The non-inclusion of the employees, including the petitioner, of the Thopramkudi Pepper Processing and Marketing Society, in the voters'' list constitutes the cause of action to file this O.P., the petitioner submits. This court, it is further contended, stayed the election as is seen from the interim order originally passed. Latter the said interim order was modified as the respondent gave an undertaking to the court that the employees of the society also will be included in the voters'' list before the election is conducted. The election accordingly was conducted and the result were declared.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detection of the societies including, ''the society '' from the voters list assuming that they have not renewed their affiliation to the State Co-operative Union, is bad in law. The members of the managing committees of the societies as also the employees of the societies are eligible voters and therefore the election conducted without giving them an Opportunity to participate in the election is not sustainable in law. On the other '' hand the learned Government Pleader contended that these societies are not eligible to be included in the final voters list as they have not renewed their affiliation to the State Cooperative Union. A reference his the this connection to the averments contained in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit is profitable.

The question thus arising for consideration is: Could it be said that societies which are not affiliated to the State Co-operative Union or the societies which are affiliated but renew the of such societies are not entitled to participate in the election to the Circle Co-operative union? The answer depends upon the construction of Section 90 of The Act Sub-section of 1 of Section 90 provides that every co-operative society in the State shall get itself affiliated to the Stab Co-operative'' union. Sub. section 2 says that the affiliation under sub-section 1 shall be in force for a period of one year from the date of affiliation and shall be renewed on the expiry of that period. Sub-section 4 highlights the consequences of a society not getting affiliated to the State Co-operative Union. This sub-section says that if any co-operative society fails to affiliate to the State Co-operative Union as required by sub-section 1 or to renew such affiliation as required by subsection 2, such society shall not be entitled to any of the privileges conferred to a co-operative society by or under the Act. In other words a society which is not affiliated to the (Union or failed to renew the affiliation already obtained, is not entitled to any of the privileges conferred on the society by or under the Act. The word ''privilege'' the learned Government Pleader submits, is not defined and therefore the meaning of that word as understood in common parlance shall be taken note of to understand the content of the section; and if that be so, the right to contest an election or to vote at an election can also be treated as a privilege conferred by or under the Act. The respondent therefore was justified in not allowing those societies which failed to renew the affiliation as also the employees of such societies to participate in the election. This argument proceeds only on the basis of the word ''privilege''. To find, out the meaning of a word which is not defined, one should always refer to the context in which it is used. No provision in the statute and no word in a section shall be construed in vaccum. To put it briefly while trying to get the meaning of a word, in a section, which is not defined, one should not concentrate too much on that word and pay too little attention to the other words. In other words to determine the meaning of the word one should refer to the other provisions, particularly those provisions with which that word is intrinsically connected. Applying this principle here it should be declared that the word ''privileges'' (mark the words that precede this wory namely "any of the" and also the words that follow it namely " conferred on a Co-operative Society ) can refer only to the privileges enumerated and defined u/s 35 to 41 of Chapter V. There is, therefore, no need to define or to give a specific meaning to the word at all.

The learned Government Pleader than argued that unless the expression ''privilege'' is given the meaning suggested by him, the object to accomplish which, the State Co-operative Union is constituted, is likely to be lost. To find out the object in constituting the State Co-operative Union, the Government Pleader submits one has to refer to Sections 89, 90 and 91. Section 89 defines the State Co-operative Union. Section 91 enumerates the functions of the State Co-operative Union. Section 90 says that ail co-operative societies shall get affiliated to the State Co-operative Union. Sub-section 4 of Section 90 deals with the consequences of non-affiliation namely that, a society which fails to get affiliated or fails to renew the affiliation within the stipulated period, is not entitled to any of the privileges conferred on a co-operative society by or under the Act. Particular reference to Section 91 prescribing the functions of the State Co-operative Union is necessary. The said functions are:

(a) to organise, assist and generally develop co-operative societies;

(b) to carry on co-operative propaganda, and

(c) to spread education on co-operative principles and practices.

(2) The State Co-operative Union shall perform such other functions as may be prescribed.

These Sections, the Government Pleader submits, read along with subsection 4 of Section 90 do reflect the intention of the legislature to treat the fight to contest an election and also the right to vote at the election envisaged u/s 80 are also privileges. Non-inclusion of these rights as privileges in Chapter V must be deemed to an omission. Such omissions can be filled by the court, if it comes to that, even by reading wards or supplying fresh clauses into that Act by Court and thus allow the intention of the legislature to override the defective drafting of the Statute. That this is a well established canon of interpretation is beyond dispute. Equally well established is the principle that the court has no power to fill in any lacuna, gaps or omissions by stretching the language employed in the section although the court has the duty to try and harmonies the various provisions of the Act. If the legislature intended something opposite to what is stated in the Section or the legislature did intent that which is not expressed clearly or to put it differently if the legislature intended something very different, then as observed by the Privy Council in Crawford v. Spooner (4 M.I. A. 179), it is not for the court to invent something which they do not meet with in the words of the text; It is not for them so to supply a meaning. That means the court cannot legislate for causus omissus. In such cases it is for the legislature to fill up the lacuna, gap or omission by another Act. That there is no such omission as contended'' for by the Government Pleader is very clear from the expression ''privileges (plural) used in sub-section 4 of Section 90. The very fact that the privileges, a society is entitled to enjoy, have been enumerated and put in a separate chapter is more than sufficient to hold that the legislature never intended to treat the right to participate in an election or any other right as privilege. The word ''privileges'' in the context in which it is used in sub-section 4 of Section 90 therefore cannot be said to qualify any other right than those rights which are called privileges and enumerated in Section 35. to 41 of Chapter V of The Act. That the privileges enumerated and put in Chapter V are intended to be exhaustive and not illustrative is very clear from the unique circumstance brought about by the legislature by using the plural of the word ''privilege'' in sub-section 4 of Section 90. Only if they are illustrative, we need think of giving the word a precise meaning. The argument of the learned, Government Pleader that the inclusion of the right to participate in the election is a privilege therefore cannot be accepted. The learned Government Pleader then argued that there is no need for this court to declare that the election was not conducted in accordance with law became there is no such prayer in the O. P. The petitioner has also no complaint that he did not get an opportunity to participate in the election. His only case is that he and others similarly situated are entitled to be included in the voters'' list prepared in connection with the election. There is considerable force in tin''s argument of the three reliefs prayed for in the O.P. relief (c) is only of a general nature and as such cannot be granted. So far as relief (a) is concerned, the same virtually stands - granted by the interim order. Coming to relief (b): this also stands granted by the interim order because as per the directions of this court the voter''s list was corrected by including all members of the managing committees of all societies and also the employees of such societies as members in the said list. The learned counsel for the petitioner nonetheless argued that the election in fact was conducted on the basis of Ext PI voters list and therefore the petitioner did not get an opportunity to contest the election as his name at the time had not been included in that list. This argument is attractive at the first blush but if one is to go deep into the circumstances of the case this cannot be accepted for reasons more than one. There is nothing stated either in the body of the petition or in the relief portion that the petitioner had the intention to contest the election. His case all through was that the election notified without including the names of the petitioner as also persons similarly situated on. the ground that they are employees of societies which failed to get affiliated to the State, Co-operative Union cannot be said to be an election conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. That he got the chance to exercise his wore at the election'' is beyond dispute., If that be the position the further argument of the counsel on behalf of the petitioner that he lost his chance to contest the election, for the reason stated above, cannot be taken cognisance of. To put it briefly the reliefs prayed for in the O. P. in fact stand granted by the interim orders passed by this court. No further direction therefore requires to be issued.

The O. P. is disposed of as above. No costs.