Fateh Singh vs The State of Haryana and Others

J.M. Tandon, J.—Fateh Singh Petitioner is a resident of village Jamni, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. He was a member of Co-operative Agricultural Service Society, Ltd., Jamni and on the amalgamation of four Cooperative Society of Rajana Kburd, Rajana Kalan, Jamni and Beri Khera, he became a member of Jamni Co-operative and Credit Service Society Limited, Jamni (hereinafter the Society). The Registrar, Co-operative Societies appointed an Administrator of the Society. The Petitioner filed his nomination papers on March 4, 1979, for contesting the election for the membership of the Managing Committee of the Society. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies acting as a Returning Officer for the election rejected his nomination papers vide order dated March 6, 1979 (Annexure P. 1) on the ground that he had been inactive during 12 months preceding the dale of filing of the nomination papers, as was evident from the record of the Society as also from his statement attached with the nomination papers. The Petitioner has challenged this order (Annexure P. 1) of the Returning Officer on the grounds of being unjustified, mala fide and Rule 25(f) of the Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter the Rules) providing for the rejection of the nomination papers on the ground of inactiveness being ultra vires the (Constitution)

The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies in his written statement filed on behalf of the official Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has averred that the nomination papers of the Petitioner were rightly rejected on account of his being inactive because he hid neither borrowed loan from the Society nor paid any deposit therein during the period of 12 months preceding the date of the filing of the nomination parpers as was evident from the record of the Society as also from his statement attached with the nomination papers.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the official Respondents has raised two preliminary objections. The first preliminary objection is that as there is no violation of the provisions of any Act or the Rules resulting in any injury of substantial nature to the Petitioner, the writ is not maintainable. In my opinion, there is no force in this. The Petitioner has challenged the vires of Rule 25(f) of Rules framed u/s 85 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter the Act) under which the nomination papers of the Petitioner have been rejected. Rule 25(f) is a statutory rule and has the force of law. It is undisputed that in the event of Rule 25(f) being struck down as unconstitutional, the impugned order (P. 1) of the Returning Officer shall have to be quashed. In this situation, the Petitioner can maintain the writ. The second preliminary objection raised is that as the Petitioner has not availed of the alternative remedy available to him under Sections 55/56 of the Act, the writ is not maintainable. The objection also has no force because the Petitioner could not seek relief under Sections 55/56 of the Act by getting Rule 25(f) of the Rules declared unconstitutional.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not pressed the grounds of mala fides against the Respondents. The only point argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Rule 25(f) of the Rules is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution because the term ''inactive'' on the basis of which the nomination papers of a candidate can be rejected has not been defined.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents have contended that Rule 25(f) of the Rules cannot be declared violative of Article 14 of the Constitution in view of the provisions contained in Article 31-A thereof In my opinion this contention must prevail. The relevant part of Article 31-A of the Constitution reads:

31-A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law providing for--

(a),(b),(c) .. .. .. ..

(d) the extinguishment or modification of any rights of managing agents, secretaries and treasurers, managing directors, directors or managers of corporations, or of any voting rights of shareholders thereof, or

(e) .. .. .. .. ..

shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the right conferred by Article 14 or Article 19, or Article 31.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that Article 31-A (i)(d) is not applicable to the instance case because a Co-operative Society is not a Corp ration in terms thereof. The learned Counsel for the Respondents have, however, cited Mota Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. 1979 P.L.J. 129, wherein a Full Bench of this Court has taken a contrary view and has held that a Co-operative Society is clearly and squarely within the ambit of the word ''corporation'' as used in Article 3-A(1)(d) of the Constitution. In view of this clear authority, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not press this point further.

Another point argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the impuged order (P. 1) of the Returning Officer is not a speaking order and is liable to be set aside on this ground. I see no force in this contention. The Returning Officer has given reasons for rejecting the nomination papers of the Petitioner in order P. 1. It therefore, cannot be taken as a non-speaking order.

No other point has been argued.

In the result, the writ fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.