Nominated Member Can Contest For Chairman Post In Cooperative Society: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a challenge against the appointment of a Chairman of a Land Development Bank, ruling that a person reaching a position through nomination can be equated to an elected post for further elections within the society.

In a significant verdict, Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak dealt with a petition challenging the eligibility of the Chairman of the Gujarat State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. The petitioner had contended that the respondent was ineligible under Section 74(1A)(ii) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 because he was a nominated representative from the Gujarat State Co-operative Bank and not a primary elected member of the respondent bank. The Court, however, found no merit in these contentions, citing significant delay in filing the petition and the availability of alternative remedies.

Legal Validity of Nominated Members in Leadership Roles

The Court examined whether a nominated member is barred from contesting for the post of Chairman or Director. It noted that the respondent was duly elected as a Director of the Gujarat State Co-operative Bank and subsequently nominated to the respondent bank, where he was elected uncontested as Chairman.

In its reasoning, the Court observed: "...there is no any expressed or ample bar found that nominated member cannot be filed his candidature to contest the election either for the post of Director or the Chairman. The respondent No.4 is duly elected through the proper election process undertaken by the concerned respondent as per Section 145(2) of the Act and, therefore, the dispute raised by the petitioner is devoid of merits."

Court's Stance on Delay and Alternative Remedies

Addressing the procedural aspects, the Court highlighted that the petitioner had waited nearly five years to challenge the 2021 appointment. Relying on the principles of laches and acquiescence as discussed in Union Of India Vs. N.Murugesan Etc., the Court held that the petitioner had waived his rights by not acting promptly. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that Section 145U of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 provides a specific mechanism for election disputes through a Tribunal, which the petitioner failed to exhaust.

Background:

The dispute arose when the petitioner sought the removal of the respondent from the post of Director and Chairman of the Gujarat State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was not an agriculturist and had used his nomination from the Gujarat State Co-operative Bank to circumvent democratic election processes. It was further argued that the respondent's term at the parent bank had expired in 2024, rendering him ineligible to continue in the second term at the respondent bank.

The respondents countered by arguing that the petition was politically motivated and hit by gross delay. They cited Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Vs. K. Thangappan and Union Of India Vs. N.Murugesan Etc. to emphasize that discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 should not be granted to those who sleep over their rights. The Court agreed, noting that the petitioner had even participated in meetings chaired by the respondent without objection for years. The High Court also noted that the petitioner suppressed the fact that a related challenge regarding bye-law amendments was already pending in another petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13199 of 2025
NeutralCitation: 2026:GUJHC:31903
Case Title: RAMESHBHAI NATHUBHAI CHAUDHARY Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): MR PK JANI SR ADVOCATE WITH MR. ARCHIT P JANI(7304)
For the Respondent(s): MR GK VIRK GP ASSISTED BY MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI WITH MR NIKUNJ KANARA AGP for No. 1, 2; MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) and MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for No. 3; MR ANSIN DESAI SR. ADVOCATE WITH VENU H NANAVATY(7458) for No. 4

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 245