Government nomination under co-operative society law is not cumulative where protected bye-laws already meet the statutory minimum.

Section 48 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 confers only a minimum nomination entitlement on a State Government where its shareholding is below 26%, and that power does not operate cumulatively with existing bye-law based nominations. Bye-laws protected by section 126 remain effective unless inconsistent with the Act, and where they already provide government nominees that meet or exceed the statutory minimum, no further nomination right arises. The statutory scheme is directed toward co-operative autonomy, so the government cannot claim an additional director merely because section 48 exists. On this analysis, the impugned extra nomination was invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under section 48 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, the State Government could nominate an additional Director to the Board of a multi-State co-operative society when two government nominees were already on the Board under the bye-laws and the bye-laws were protected by section 126 of the Act.

Analysis: The power of nomination under the earlier regime permitted government nominees in excess of the statutory minimum, and the bye-laws of the society already provided for two nominees from each of the two State Governments. Under section 48 of the 2002 Act, the State Government had a minimum entitlement to nominate one Director where its shareholding was below 26 per cent, but the Act did not state that this power operated cumulatively in addition to the bye-law-based nominations already in force. Section 126 protected existing bye-laws unless inconsistent with the new Act, and the bye-laws here were not inconsistent because they already satisfied and exceeded the statutory minimum. The new Act was intended to promote autonomy, and the statutory scheme did not justify treating the government's minimum nomination power as a further, additional right over and above the existing bye-law nominations.

Conclusion: The State Government was not entitled to nominate an additional Director merely because section 48 of the 2002 Act provided for one nomination; the existing two nominations under the bye-laws remained sufficient, and the impugned nomination was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the additional government nomination failed, and the dismissal of the original petition was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where bye-laws protected by the statute already provide for government nominees and are not inconsistent with the Act, a later statute conferring a minimum nomination power does not create an additional cumulative right to make further nominations beyond those bye-law-based nominations.

---