Two-term restriction under co-operative law counted the pre-Act presidential term; writ jurisdiction enforced statutory election duties.

Section 40 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 was treated as a supervisory provision for removal of a disqualified office-bearer, not an adjudicatory alternative for nomination or election disputes, so it did not bar writ jurisdiction. Section 37, read with its explanation, was construed to count a president's term held at the Act's commencement where the person was again elected after commencement, preventing more than two consecutive terms and making the respondent ineligible for the further election. A writ also lay to enforce statutory duties against the society and returning officer notwithstanding that the society was not State under Article 12. The election was therefore invalid and the nomination and result were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative remedy under section 40 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. (ii) Whether section 37 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 disqualified the respondent from being elected president for a further term after holding office at the commencement of the Act and being subsequently elected again. (iii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the society and the returning officer for enforcement of the statutory obligations arising under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative remedy under section 40 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984.

Analysis: Section 40 was held to be a supervisory provision enabling the Central Registrar to remove an office-bearer who had incurred a disqualification and refused to vacate office. It did not create an adjudicatory forum for deciding disputes concerning nomination or election, which were expressly governed by section 74. The absence of any detailed adjudicatory machinery under section 40 and the nature of the grievance showed that it was not a suitable alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The availability of section 40 did not bar the writ petition, and the petition could not be rejected on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether section 37 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 disqualified the respondent from being elected president for a further term after holding office at the commencement of the Act and being subsequently elected again.

Analysis: The opening part of section 37, read with its explanation, was construed to mean that a person holding the office of president at the commencement of the Act, whether by nomination or election, would have that period counted for purposes of the two-term restriction if he was again elected after commencement. The provision was treated as remedial and intended to prevent continuous tenure beyond two consecutive terms. The court also rejected the argument that the presidency of the bank and the presidency of the board were distinct offices for this purpose.

Conclusion: The respondent had held two consecutive terms within the meaning of section 37 and was ineligible for the 1989 election to the office of president.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the society and the returning officer for enforcement of the statutory obligations arising under the Act.

Analysis: The court held that a writ would lie to compel performance of statutory duties imposed by the Act on the society and the returning officer. The fact that the society was not a State under Article 12 was not decisive where mandamus was sought to enforce statutory obligations.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The election of the respondent as president was invalid, the writ petition succeeded, and the impugned nomination and election were set aside with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute imposes a restriction on eligibility to hold office for more than two consecutive terms, the term held at the commencement of the Act counts for that restriction if the person is again elected after commencement, and a writ lies to enforce such statutory duties when the dispute is not covered by an adequate alternative adjudicatory remedy.

---