AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seek a direction for appointment of Board of Administrator of the J&K Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd
in order to save the institution by holding free, fair and impartial elections. The petitioners also seek a direction restraining the respondents to withhold
the elections of the J&K Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd till the Board of Administrators, is appointed for holding free and fair elections. In
order to appreciate the petitioners’ grievances, few facts need mention which are stated infra.
The petitioners are the representatives of different Cooperative Housing Building Societies affiliated to the J&K Cooperative Housing Corporation
Ltd. By a notification dated 16.09.2014, Board of Directors of J&K Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd were declared elected unopposed. Their
term of three years expired on 19.08.2017. It is the case of the petitioners that as per Section 29 of the J&K Cooperative Societies Act, 1989, an
administrator ought to have been appointed. However, the administrator has not been appointed and the elections are scheduled to be held on
25.03.2018. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the reliefs as stated supra.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners while inviting the attention of this Court to Section 29 of the Act submitted that under the aforesaid
provision, an administrator was required to be appointed. However, the same was not appointed and the elections are scheduled to be held on
25.03.2018. It is also submitted that the object of appointment of the administrator is to ensure free and fair elections. It is also submitted that the
apprehension of the petitioners is that the Managing Director of the Corporation is holding the elections in league with outgoing office bearers. It is
further submitted that the Registrar under the provisions of the Act has no power to hold the elections and the Board of Management can hold the
elections.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 submitted that the petitioners with their eyes wide open have responded to the
election notification which was issued and have submitted the nomination forms. The elections are scheduled to be held on 25.03.2018. It is further
submitted that well before the expiry of the period of the Managing Committee, it had approached the Registrar as required under Section 29 of the
Act. It is also submitted that the election notification was issued by the Registrar on 18.11.2017 and 06.03.2018 was fixed for holding the election.
On a representation being made, the Registrar vide communication dated 14.12.2017 permitted three societies to participate in the process of election.
Thereafter by corrigendum dated 16.02.2018, the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, appointed Deputy District Election Officer as Returning Officer for
holding the election. It is further submitted that Section 29 of the Act gives the discretion either to appoint the Board of Management or the
Administrator. It is further submitted that once the process of election has commenced, no interference can be made in exercise of power in writ
jurisdiction. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Election
Commission of India v. State of Haryana, 1984 (Supp) SCC 104 and decision of this Court in the case of Shatru Jeet Singh Jamwal and others v. Om
Prakash Shukla and others, 2005 (2) JKJ 1.Â
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
Admittedly, the term of Managing Committee has expired on 18.09.2017. Before the expiry of the tenure, the Managing Director by a
communication dated 15.07.2017 requested the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to issue necessary notification for holding the elections to the
Corporation. Thereupon, the respondent No.2 vide communication dated 25.07.2017 directed the necessary respondents to update the Electoral Roll
and convey the same to the office. The respondents 3 and 4 furnished the information on 11.08.2017 to respondent No.2. By communication dated
06.09.2017, the respondent No.2 directed the Managing Director to publish the list of societies affiliated with Housing Corporation. Thereupon, by
notices dated 09.09.2017 as well as dated 10.09.2017, the list was published in pursuance of which, six Cooperative Societies made a representation
and challenged their exclusion. The Registrar Cooperative Societies while considering the representation of the six Cooperative Societies by an order
dated 14.12.2017 declared the three Societies ineligible and rest of the three societies were declared eligible to take part in the election process. The
respondent No.2, thereafter, by notification dated 18.12.2017 notified the date of holding of the elections on 06.03.2018. The respondent No.2,
thereafter by a notification dated 20.02.2018 re-notified the schedule for holding the election on 25.03.2018 and the Returning Officer by notice dated
19.03.2018 notified the elections of the Corporation which are scheduled on 25.03.2018. In other words, the process of elections has already been
made set in motion in pursuance of which the petitioners have even submitted their nomination forms.
It is also relevant to mention here that in response to the notification issued by the Returning Officer, the petitioners have submitted their nomination
forms and, therefore, now at this fag end, they cannot be permitted to turn around and complain that an administrator ought to have been appointed.
From the above narration of facts, it is graphically clear that the conduct of the petitioners disentitles them to any relief in exercise of extraordinary
jurisdiction which otherwise is discretionary in nature as writ petitioners ought to have approached this Court at appropriate time immediately after the
expiry of the period of 90 days when the Board of Administrators was not appointed, the cause of action had accrued to petitioners in the month of
November, 2017 itself when period of 90 days expired, whereas this petition filed on 14.03.2018. It is well settled in law that once the process of
elections is commenced, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 103 of the Constitution of State of Jammu and Kashmir should not interdict in
the process of elections which has been set in motion. (See:Â Election Commission of India v. State of W.B. And Another, (2003) 11 SCC 698,
Purnima Yadav v. Union of India and another, (2005) 7 SCC 148, Shaji K.Joseph v. Viswanath (2016)4 SCC 429.
In view of the preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same fails and is hereby dismissed along with
connected MP.