Vithal S. Vernekar And 5 Ors vs. Sandesh Mandrekar And 4 Ors

Facts

The petitioners, elected Directors of the Goa State Cooperative Marketing and Supply Federation Ltd. (Respondent No. 4) for the 2021-2026 term, challenged a judgment of the Cooperative Tribunal. The Tribunal had set aside an order by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Respondent No. 2) that rejected the nomination of Respondent No. 1 for the election. The Registrar had rejected Respondent No. 1's nomination based on a certificate alleging that a family member of Respondent No. 1 conducted a similar business, disqualifying him under Section 60(1)(d) of the Goa Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. The Tribunal, however, found the nomination was erroneously rejected, consequently setting aside the election of the petitioners and directing fresh elections. The petitioners argued the Tribunal misinterpreted Section 60(1)(d) and erred in holding their objections unproven.

Held

The Court held that the Tribunal's interpretation of Section 60(1)(d) was correct. The Tribunal had correctly noted that the objections did not allege Respondent No. 1 was carrying out a business similar to the Federation's, nor that the family member's business was conducted on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Furthermore, there was no material or allegation that Respondent No. 1 was a partner or director in the business. The Tribunal's findings, based on the record, were not perverse and correctly applied the law. Therefore, the Court held in the negative on the second issue, finding that the Tribunal did not err in holding that the petitioners had not proved Respondent No. 1 incurred disqualification. The Court also referenced N. T. Veluswami Thevar V/s G. Raja Nainar (AIR 1959 SC 422) to affirm that the Tribunal, acting as an election petition forum, could conduct a broader inquiry than the Returning Officer, and that setting aside an election due to improper rejection of a nomination was permissible. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal was found to be without interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal's interpretation of Section 60(1)(d) of the Goa Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, is correct, specifically regarding disqualification when a family member's business only partially overlaps with the society's business? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the petitioners failed to prove Respondent No. 1 incurred disqualification under Section 60(1)(d) of the Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the Tribunal misinterpreted Section 60(1)(d) by giving it a restrictive meaning, arguing that the business of Respondent No. 1's brother (stationary, ice cream, retail items) was similar enough to the Federation's supermarket/department store business. They also argued that the Returning Officer's inquiry into objections is summary and that the Tribunal erred in requiring detailed proof, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in N. T. Veluswami Thevar V/s G. Raja Nainar (AIR 1959 SC 422) to support the summary nature of the Returning Officer's inquiry. Respondent's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by Respondent No. 1.