V.S. Sirpurkar, J.

1. In this petition the election programme of respondent No. 6 Chalisgaon Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chalisgaon, is challenged on various grounds. The said election was scheduled to be held in pursuance of a programme dated 10-12-1992. The said programme was thereafter amended by changing the date of the elections and this amendment was effected on 25-12-1992. The main ground on which the programme is challenged is firstly that there has been no reservation provided in the Board of Directors to the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in contravention of section 73-B of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The second ground on which the said programme is challenged is for the unfairness of the whole programme in as much as, the petitioners contend, that the present members of the Board of Directors have nominated themselves as members of the election committee and this election committee is acting as a Returning Officer for these elections. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the members of this committee, who have been nominated to act as a Returning Officer, are themselves the candidates in the forthcoming elections.

2. We shall take up the first point for consideration as to whether the election programme is bad for contravention of section 73-B. Section 73-B sub-section (1) provides -

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the rules made thereunder or in any bye-laws of the society, on the committee of such society or class of societies as the State Government may, by general or special order, direct, two seats shall be reserved, -

(a) one for the members belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes; and

(b) one for the members belonging to the weaker section."

In order that section 73-B should apply to the present case, it is essential for the petitioners to show that in the case of the respondent No. 6 Bank there has been such a general or special order by the State Government. For this purpose, Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners, relied upon a notification issued by the State Government vide No. GG., A & CD No. WDC 287/15026/V-C-5 dated 6th of July, 1971. This notification provides specifically that the seven classes of societies would be governed by section 73-B. Shri Patil contends that "credit resource societies" are encompassed by this notification since the present bank, respondent` No. 6, is a credit resource society itself, the said notification is applicable to it and, as such, the provisions of section 73-B, which make the reservations compulsory, are applicable to the elections of the respondent No. 6 Bank.

Shri Patil further contended that the present Bank is nothing but a credit resource society and in support of his argument Shri Patil took us to the definition of a credit resource society which is defined as under :

"Section 2(25) Resource society means a society the object of which is the obtaining for its members of credit, goods or services required by them."

Shri Patil thereafter relied upon the definition of Co-operative Bank as defined in Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act vide section 2(10) which runs as under :

"Co-operative Bank means a society which is doing the business of banking as defined in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, and includes any society which is functioning or is to function as (an Agriculture and Rural Development Bank) under Chapter (I);"

3. Shri Patil thereafter took us to section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and, more particularly, to the definitions of Primary Co-operative Bank and Primary Credit Society. The Act defines Primary Co-operative Bank as follows :

"(ccv) Primary Co-operative Bank means a Co-operative Society, other than a Primary Agricultural Credit Society,

(1) ....

(2) the paid-up share capital and reserves of which are not less than one lakh of rupees; and ..."

Section 56 sub-section (ccvi) defines the Primary Credit Society as follows :

"(ccvi) Primary Credit Society means a Co-operative Society, other than a Primary Agricultural Credit Society,

(1) ...

(2) the paid-up share capital and reserves of which are less than one lakh of rupees; and

..."

Considering last two definitions together, the contention of Mr. Patil was that the only difference between the Primary Credit Society and the Primary Co-operative Bank was that while the paid-up share capital in case of Primary Co-operative Bank was not less than one lakh of rupees, in case of Primary Credit Society, the paid-up share capital was necessarily less than one lakh of rupees. The contention of the learned Counsel was, therefore, that in fact this Bank was also a Primary Credit Society and, therefore, it would be covered under the term "Credit Resource Societies". The argument cannot be accepted. The notification which is relied upon by the learned Counsel is extremely clear and includes only Credit Resource Societies and six other classes of societies which are as under :

(1) Service Resource Societies;

(2) District Central Co-op. Bank;

(3) Co-operative Sugar Factories;

(4) District Level Co-operative Societies;

(5) Co-operative Spinning Mills;

(6) Co-operative Oil Mills.

It is very clear from this notification that the Primary Co-operative Banks like respondent No. 6 have not been included or have not been even thought of by this notification. We cannot read something in this notification, which is specifically excluded by it. The exclusion of Primary Co-operative Bank from the notification is more prominent, particularly because "District Central Co-operative Bank" is included in it. The exclusion of the Bank like respondent No. 6 is thus intentional. The only banking society which was intended to be covered appears to be the "District Central Co-operative Bank" which creates the funds for being loaned to other societies and which does not include the Urban Co-operative Bank like the present respondent No. 6 (see definition of Central Bank vide section 2(6) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act).

If the two definitions, namely, the definition of Primary Co-operative Bank and the definition of Primary Credit Society in Banking Regulation Act, 1949, are considered together, one thing is quite certain that the Primary Co-operative Bank cannot be and could never be taking the character of Primary Co-operative Bank cannot be and could never be taking the character of Primary Credit Society. If the two institutions, namely, "Primary Co-operative Bank" and "Primary Co-operative Credit Society" are separately defined even under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act viz. section 2(10) and section 2(25), then they must be considered as independent entities. By their separate definitions themselves, the difference in the character of these two entities is highlighted. While the credit resource society strives to obtain credit for its members and thus has the objective of individual betterment, of its members, the Co-operative Bank is a business organisation. Under such circumstances, merely because the notification, which is issued under the provisions of section 73-B of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, mentions "Credit Resource Societies", it cannot be held that by term "Credit Resource Societies" the notification also meant to take into its fold the "Primary Co-operative Banks".

4. There is one more reason for repelling the argument of Mr. Patil. In order to interpret the term Credit Resource Society which is defined in Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and, more particularly, to see whether the said Credit Resource Society can also mean a Primary Bank and further whether the notification which is issued under the provisions of section 73-B is applicable to such Bank, it will not be permissible for us to rely on the definition of an entirely different Act like "Banking Regulation Act". For interpreting the term "Credit Resource Society" which appears in a notification which is taken out under section 73-B of the Co-operative Societies Act. We will have to go only to the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and to none other. It is an established canon of interpretation that while interpreting the term in a particular Act the definition of the same in some other Act cannot be relied upon or resorted to. Taking this view of the matter, it will not be possible for us to accept the argument of the learned Counsel that the notification dated 6th July, 1971, also applies to the respondent No. 6 and, therefore, the provisions of section 73-B, which make the reservation compulsory, are also applicable to the said Bank, respondent No. 6.

5. As a second leg of his argument, Shri Patil thereafter took us to the model by-laws. These by-laws have been approved by the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State Pune. Shri Patil took us through these model by-laws and, more particularly, by-law No. 29 which provides for the Board of Directors. In this by-law it is provided that there shall be 12 Directors and by-laws (iii)(a) specifically provides that the two seats on the Board shall be reserved; one for the members who belong to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or to the Jatis declared to be Vimukta Jatis by the State Government and one for the weaker section of the members who have been granted loans not exceeding Rs. 200/- during the year immediately preceding. Shri Patil heavily relies upon these model by-laws and contends that in fact the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies had specifically forwarded these model by-laws to all the chairman of Urban Co-operative Banks in the State of Maharashtra and it should mean that the said by-laws have been adopted by the concerned Bank and the elections should proceed strictly in compliance with these by-laws. There is inherent weakness in this argument inasmuch as these by-laws though have been circulated as model by-laws, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent No. 6 has adopted these by-laws in any manner. Now, in fact, much could have been done for implementing these by laws inasmuch as section 14 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act makes a specific provision in that behalf. Section 14 gives a power to the Registrar to direct any society to make any such amendment as is felt necessary or desirable to its bye-laws. Section 14(2) specifically provides that if a society fails to make amendment as per any such directions given by the Registrar, then after giving such society an opportunity of being heard and after consulting such State Federal Society, as may be notified, the suggested amendments shall be deemed to have been adopted. Unfortunately, in the present case, the petitioners have not placed on record any facts suggesting that the authorities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act have in any manner complied with the provisions of section 14 for the implementation of these model by-laws, more particularly, in case of respondent No. 6. In the absence of any pleading to that affect in the petition and in the absence of any material to that effect, we are unable to hold that these model by-laws have actually been adopted by the respondent No. 6.

6. There cannot be any debate that there has to be a representation to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as also to the weaker sections in every society for that matter, however, unless the procedure under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is shown to have been followed, merely because the model by-laws have been recommended, it cannot be held that the elections should be held in compliance with those model by-laws.

7. The other ground on which the election programme is challenged is the total unfairness of the election programme. Shri Patil contends that election Rule 6 of the respondent No. 6 Bank provides that the scrutiny of nomination papers shall be made by the Board of Directors. So also, election Rule No. 4 provides that the objections to the entries in the provisional voters list shall also be decided by the Board of Directors and the finalisation of the list shall be effected by the Board of Directors. As per Rule 10(c) it is again the function of the Board of Directors to supervise the process of counting and, lastly, the Board of Directors is vested with the powers to decide all objections to the election. Shri Patil contends that thus the present Board of Directors themselves have assumed the power of the Returning Officers and, more particularly when all the members of the Board of Directors are the contesting candidates in these very same elections. In similar circumstances when the elections of Parbhani Peoples Co-operative Bank were challenged, this Court, by an order dated 5th of April, 1991, to which one of us, B.N. Deshmukh, J., was a party, had observed in the following terms :

"In the present case when the election is being conducted by the candidates as election officers, we think, this is an appropriate case where this Court is required to interfere even by way of interim relief in a petition under Article 226."

The situation is no way different in the present petition. The aforementioned order dated 5th April, 1991, was challenged before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. (Civil) 7600 of 1991, wherein the Supreme Court has made following observations :

"The High Court in the interim order has made certain observations with regard to the fairness of the election to be conducted by the sub committee, since the members of the election committee are also the candidates for election with the right to reject the nomination and hold election, there appears to be substance in the observations made by the High Court."

It is, therefore, clear that in the present situation where the members of the Board of Directors who themselves are contesting candidates have also assumed the functions of deciding the objections, supervising the counting process as also finalising the voters list. The whole programme has to be termed as unfair and the whole programme then has to be quashed on that ground alone. This factual situation could not be controverted by the respondents as also the Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. It will, therefore, be not possible to allow the election programme at Exh. D. to be continued under the supervision of the Board of Directors members of which are also the contesting candidates in these elections. We, therefore, direct the respondent No. 4 to frame new programme afresh and to proceed with the elections. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, may himself do the same or may supervise such other officer deemed fit for that purpose.

8. It is pointed out by Shri Patil that Rule 8(2) of the election rules provides that every voter must vote for all the 11 seats; if any voter gives more or less votes than 11 votes, then that vote shall be treated as invalid. The rule is obviously incorrect because every voter has a right to give the vote as per his own discretion. If he casts more votes than the seats then obviously the whole vote can be invalidated. However, if the voter does not choose to give all the 11 votes and restricts his choice, such vote, on that count itself, cannot be invalidated. The Assistant Registrar, who is directed to hold the elections, shall take these observations into consideration while counting the votes and Rule 8(2), in so far as it pertains to the giving of less votes is concerned, shall be ignored.

9. Shri Patil has also invited our attention to the rules which have already been mentioned earlier by us in the judgment and, more particularly, Rules 6, 4, 10(c), 7, 8 and 11(4).

In fact all the election rules have been exhibited in the petition vide Ex. A. Considering the contentions raised by Shri Patil, we have given anxious consideration to all these rules. We find that the challenge by the petitioner to these rules is quite substantial. In fact, Rule 4(2) and (3), Rule 6(1), Rule 7, Rule 8(2), Rule 9(2) - so also Rule 10(c) and Rule 11(4) are the particular rules which are attacked by Shri Patil as the rules giving a total autocratic power in the hands of the Board of Directors even when such Board of Directors are contesting candidates themselves. It is really strange that the Board of Directors should take to itself the power to consider the objections to the provisional list of voters and to finalise the list, so also the said Board should also proceed to scrutinise the nomination forms, particularly when they themselves are the contesting candidates. Further, it is again the Board of Directors who should distribute the symbols and further should also supervise the counting process which is a very important process in the election. Strangely enough, again it is provided in the rules that if there is any dispute regarding the election the final decision will be that of Board of Directors. Such rules cannot be allowed to stay for this reason that they go contrary to the very essence of democratic process. In the Supreme Court decision to which we have already made a reference, the bank i.e. Parbhani Peoples Co-operative Bank had specifically agreed to amend those rules and then to proceed with the election in the light of the amended rules so as to avoid the mischief caused by the rules. It was on this basis that the Supreme Court had allowed to put that aspect before the High Court since the petition was still then pending. It is thus clear that the Supreme Court also has reiterated and affirmed the observations by the High Court to the effect that such rules could not be allowed to hold ground and the elections could not be allowed to proceed on the basis of such rules. At this stage Shri Bankar, Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6, suggested that the respondent No. 6 would also be prepared to effect necessary changes in the rules by removing the objected clauses which we have enumerated above. If that be so, then the respondent No. 6 is at liberty to amend the election rules suitably and to proceed with the elections only on the basis of the amended rules. We do not, therefore, propose to deal with the rules any further in view of this express undertaking given before us.

10. However, this judgment would not be complete unless a direction is given to the respondent No. 3 District Deputy Registrar to take an action under section 14 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act to introduce the model by-laws which provide for the reservations. The intendment of the Legislature is very clear in favour of the reservations. In fact, the petitioners have put the material before this Court to the effect that Chalisgaon Taluka, which is the area of operation of the respondent No. 6 Bank, consists of very substantial number of people belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of the affairs that there has to be a reservation for them on the Board of Directors of this Bank. Even if we have held that the provisions of section 73-B are not applicable to the respondent No. 6 Bank, if the model by-laws are made applicable viz. the process of section 14(1) and (2), then these reservations would automatically be applicable and thus would open a way for the so far un-represented weaker sections to the Board of Directors. We accordingly direct the District Deputy Registrar to take steps to implement the model by-laws to the respondent No. 6 Bank. In view of this, we pass following orders.

(A) The election programme of the respondent No. 6 is hereby quashed. The respondent No. 4 is directed to hold the elections of the respondent No. 6 Bank either under his own supervision or under the supervision of any officer nominated by him in the light of observations made in this judgment without waiting for amendment of the election rules by the respondent No. 6.

(B) The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to take immediate steps for making applicable the model by-laws to the respondent No. 6.

(C) The election process shall be completed by the end of June, 1993.

With these directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.