Daya Nand Chaudhary vs H.L. Sondh and Others

R.N. Mittal, J.—Briefly, the facts are that there is Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Confed) having various Central Cooperative Consumers Stores Ltd. under it in the State of Haryana and the Narnaul Central Co-operative Consumers Store Ltd., Narnaul (hereinafter called the NarnauJ Central Store), is one of them. The Petitioner is a member and Vice-Chairman of the Narnaul Central Store. The Central Stores are entitled to send one representative each to elect members of the Managing Committee of the Confed. In order to elect a representative, a meeting of the Narnaul Central Store took place on December 21, 1979, wherein the Petitioner was elected as such. The members so elected are entitled to stand for membership of the Managing Committee.

The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, prepared an election programme for the election of the Managing Committee of the Confed and fixed July 15, 1980, for the election. Mr. H.L. Sondh, additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, Respondent No. 1, was appointed as the Returning Officer. The election programme was sent to all the Central Stores on 23rd May, 1980. The Narnaul Central Store, in response to the above letter, sent resolution, dated December 21, 1979, by which the Petitioner was appointed its representative along with a forwarding letter, dated May 26, 1980, to the Managing Director, Confed, Chandigarh. It is further averred that the voters'' list was prepared by Respondent No. 1, but the name of the Petitioner was excluded from that list. On June 16, 1980, the Petitioner as well as Ram Pal Singh, Respondent No. 2, filed their nomination papers from Zone No. 10, in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of Election to the Committees of Co-operative Societies, (hereinafter referred to as the Election Rules). Respondent No. 1 rejected the nomination papers of the Petitioner and accepted those of Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders through this writ petition.

The Respondents have contested the writ petition and inter alia pleaded that the Narnaul Central Store resolved to depute the Petitioner to participate in the election to be held on December 28. 1979, while no election was to be held on that date. The resolution dated December 21, 1979, sent to the Managing Director of the Confed, had no relevance to the election and, as such, his name was not included in the voters'' list. They have also raised two preliminary objections, firstly, that the Narnaul Central Store and not the Petitioners entitled to file a writ petition, and secondly, that an alternate remedy is available to the Petitioner and, therefore, no writ petition is maintainable.

The writ petition was listed before me while sitting singly. There was a conflict of decisions on the preliminary objections. Therefore, I referred the matter to a larger Bench. That is how the case has been listed before us.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents have argued that the Narnaul Central Store is a member of the Confed and, therefore, if its representative has not been included in the list of voters, it is that Store which is aggrieved against that order and not the Petitioner. It is argued that he has also not been authorised to file the writ petition by it. According to them, in that situation it is the Narnaul Central Store and not the Petitioner that can file the writ petition.

We have considered the argument of the learned Counsel but regret our inability to accept it. Rule 6 of the Election Rules provides that a person, who is a duly authorised representative of the member Co-operative Society, may be nominated as a candidate for election in the zone in which he is enlisted as a voter. In view of that provision, the Petitioner becomes entitled as a representative of the Narnaul Central Store to contest the election to the Managing Committee of the Confed. Because of the circumstance that his name has not been entered in the voters list, he had been deprived of the right to contest that election. Thus, he has been deprived of his legal right. It is well-settled that if a person has been deprived of his legal right, he has got a right to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A somewhat similar matter came up for hearing before me in Shamsher Singh, Director, Haryana State Co-operative Union Chandigarh v. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Haryana and Anr. C.W. 2329 of 1973 decided on 20th December, 1973. In that case the Petitioner was a member of the Co-operative Society and had been representing that Society in a District Co-operative Union. He was also elected as a Director of the District Co-operative Union. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, passed an order of removal of the Petitioner from the office of the Director on account of reorganization of the Revenue District of Gurgaon. He challenged that order in this Court. A preliminary objection was raised that it was the Cooperative Society, represented by him, which had a cause of action and not the Petitioner. The objection was overruled and it was held that the Petitioner had a right to file the writ petition. The counsel for the Respondents made a reference to Amar Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab and Ors. C.W. 710 of 1974 decided on 17th April, 1975. In that case, a similar objection was raised by the counsel for the Respondents. The learned Single Judge upheld the objection and observed that the Petitioner in the absence of the authority of the Co-operative Society, to which he represented, had no locus standi to file the writ petition. With great respect to the learned Judge, we are unable to endorse that view. Consequently, we overrule the said judgment. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substance in this preliminary objection.

The counsel for the Respondents have next argued that an alternate remedy was available to the Petitioner and consequently he was not entitled to file the writ petition. We have heard the learned Counsel at a great length. Section 55(2)(c) of the Punjab Co-operaive Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), relates to the disputes which may be referred to arbitration. Sub-section (1) of Section 55 says that if any dispute touching the institution, management or the business of a co-operative society arises, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. In Sub-section (2) of that section, it is said that the dispute which arises regarding election of any officer of the society is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society for the purposes of Sub-section (1). The relevant portion of the sub-section is as follows:

(2) For the purposes of Sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely:

(a).. .. ..

.. .. ..

(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society.

From a reading of the above sub-section, it is evident that all disputes relating to the election matters should be referred to the Registrar for decision. The order of the Registrar is appealable u/s 68(1)(h) of the Act. It is well-settled that if an alternate efficacious remedy is available to a Petitioner, this Court is loathe to interfere in that matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The above view finds support from Nanhoo Mal and Others Vs. Hira Mal and Others, . It was held in that case that the selection to the Office of the President of the Municipal Board could be challenged by an election petition as prescribed in the U.P. Municipalities Act. The Respondent had challenged the election of the President through a writ petition on the ground that there was non-compliance with the provisions of the rules made under that Act. The High Court accepted the writ petition and set aside the election of the President. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal against the judgment of the High Court observing that after the decision of the Court in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Others, , there-was hardly any room for Courts to entertain applications under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters relating to elections.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in election matters, this Court does interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In order to support his contention, he made a reference to Ram Singh v. The State of Haryana and Ors. 1977 P.L.J. 281. That case, however, is distinguishable as the vires of the Act had been challenged therein. In the circumstances, the ratio in that case is of no help to the counsel for the Petitioner. He also made a reference to the observations of a learned Single Judge in Devinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1973 P.L.J. 273, where it was held that the existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar for the entertainment of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The observations are unexeptionable. However, normally if an alternate remedy is available, the Courts do not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution and ask the Petitioner to avail of the remedy provided alternatively. In some cases of extreme hardship, this Court may interfere in its writ jurisdiction.

In the present case, as already state above, an efficacious alternate remedy is available to the Petitioner u/s 55 of the Act. He may, if so desire, move the Registrar to adjudicate upon the matter. The counsel for the Petitioner urges that the Registrar may not decide the matter expeditiously and thus the purpose of arbitration will be frustrated. It is necessary in such matters that the Registrar should decide the cases expeditiously. In case a reference is made before him u/s 55 ibid by the Petitioner, he should decide the same expeditiously or direct the officer to whom it is entrusted, to decide the same likewise.

In view of the fact that we have come to the conclusion that an alternate remedy is available to the Petitioner, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. No order as to costs.

S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

I agree.