Ajmer Singh vs Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karnal

R.S. Mongia, J.—Ajmer Singh, petitioner, and respondents No. 4 to 10 are the members of the Ghilaur Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Ghilaur, District Karnal (hereinafter called `the Society''), a Society registered under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act. Election to the Managing Committee of the Society was held on June 29, 1995. The petitioner was one of the contestants. However, he was not successful in the election whereas respondents No. 4 to 10 were declared elected. An election petition was filed by the petitioner and another person on July 31, 1995, under Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, against the elected members (Respondents No. 4 to 10), which was referred for decision to Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal. It was alleged that there had been many irregularities in holding the election.

The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal, issued notice to the respondents in the election petition for August 16, 1995. On August 16, 1995, when the respondents appeared, counsel for respondents No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 contended that the election petition was not filed within the period of limitation and, therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed. No written statement had been filed on behalf of any of the respondents. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, on the same day held that the election petition was timebarred. In spite of that, the election petitioners were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their plea regarding the alleged irregularities committed at the time of the election. Since the election petitioners did not produce any evidence, the election petition was dismissed. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal, dated August 16, 1995, dismissing the election petition is reproduced as under :

``Today on 16.8.1995 at the time of hearing Sh. B.R. Saini, counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 contended that present election petition is not within a period of limitation. Therefore, this petition may not be accepted for hearing. He invited my attention to Section 102 of Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, wherein it is clearly mentioned that Election Petition should have been filed within a period of 30 days, after expiry of these days petition may not be accepted for hearing. It is correct that present petition is not within the period of limitation, in spite of that petitioners were given opportunity to produce the solid proof of irregularities committed at the time of election. Shri Ajmer Singh and Tejpal Singh petitioners have not produced any such proof to prove any irregularities at the time of election. They complained only against the salesman. The counsel on behalf of respondents contended that the petitioners only want to delay election process so that society could not work in proper manner because petitioners have prayed for stay of cooption of Society dated 17.8.1995.

Above mentioned case heard in detail. The petitioners could not produce any proof to prove that election was not conducted in accordance with rules. Therefore, this election petition is rejected.

Announced.''''

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. While issuing notice of motion for today on September 19, 1995, we had ordered that the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal, be personally present. In pursuance to that order, he has put in appearance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that an election petition is to be tried in accordance with the principles of the Civil Procedure Code viz., a writtenstatement is to be filed by the respondents and after filing replication, if any, the issues are to be struck, then both sides are to be afforded opportunity to lead evidence and thereafter arguments are to be heard. On August 16, 1995, which was the first date on which the respondents appeared, no writtenstatement was filed and only an oral objection was taken by counsel for some of the respondents that the petition was timebarred. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the same. No issues were struck. The date was not fixed for leading any evidence. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that in fact the election petition was not time barred as under Section 102(4) of the Act, the election petition could be filed within 30 days from the date of the declaration of the result of the election. Since the result of the election was declared on June 29, 1995 the election petition could be filed on or before July 29, 1995, but since 29th and 30 July, 1995, were holidays, the election petition was filed on July 31, 1995, which was within limitation.

We had asked the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, as to how the petition was timebarred and how was it held to be timebarred without there being any writtenstatement, or issues framed or affording opportunity of leading evidence to the parties. We further asked him that if at all the election petition was timebarred, how was it that on the first date, the petitioner was asked to lead evidence in support of the allegations in the petition and that too without framing any issues and asking the respondents to file writtenstatement.

So far as the question of limitation is concerned, he referred to Section 102(4) of the Act, which is in the following terms :

``No dispute arising in connection with the election of committee members or officer of the society shall be entertained by the Registrar unless it is referred to him within thirty days from the date of the declaration of the result of election.''''

According to the Deputy Registrar and the State Counsel, the election petition had to be filed within 30 days from the date of the declaration of the result and since the declaration was on June 29, 1995, that day had to be counted for computing thirty days within which the election petition had to be filed. Accordingly, the respondents contended that the election petition had to be filed on or before July 28, 1995. So far as asking the petitioner to lead evidence on the first date, without any writtenstatement from the respondents and without framing any issues, respondents had no answer as to why this procedure was not followed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, we are of the view that there is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents. We are of the view that the election petition was within limitation. While computing the limitation, the day on which the result was declared has to be excluded and the limitation would start running from the next date i.e. from June 30, 1995 (the result was declared on June 29, 1995). The election petition could be filed within thirty days i.e. upto July 29, 1995. 29th and 30th July, 1995, being holidays, the election petition which was filed on July 31, 1995, was within limitation. In fact such a question really should have been decided after getting a reply from the respondents and framing an issue. Asking the petitioner to lead evidence on the very first day to support the allegations in the petition was also against the well known procedure for deciding the election petition under the Act.

Consequently, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal, dated August 16, 1995. The case is remanded to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh, who may decide the election petition on merits in accordance with law himself or refer the same to any of Joint Registrar or Deputy Registrar other than Shri Rattan Singh, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal, who had passed the impugned order. The election petition shall be disposed of expeditiously but not later than six months of the appearance of the parties before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana. The petitioner though his counsel as well as respondent No. 3 through his counsel are directed to appear before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, on October 19, 1995, to get further directions in the matter. The Officer who is to decide the election petition would send notices to other respondents in the election petition. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal, is directed to immediately forward the record of the case to Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana.

On September 19, 1995, we had stayed the cooption of the members to the managing committee of the society. Let the cooption go on but the cooption will be subject of the decision of the election petition.

A copy of this order be immediately sent to Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, as well as Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal, for compliance.