Ludhar Ram vs State of Punjab and Others

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This petition challenges the order dated 3.6.1999, Annexure P-3 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh allowing the election petition filed by respondent No. 4 and setting aside the election of the petitioner, as well as the order dated 2.5.2000, Annexure P-4 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Co-operation Punjab exercising the powers of the State Government under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") dismissing petitioner''s appeal against the order dated 3.6.1999.

On 16.7.1998 elections were held to the Board of Directors of Mansa Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Mansa and though the votes secured by the two candidates i.e. the petitioner and respondent No. 4 herein were equal i.e. 36 each, a draw of lots was conducted and the petitioner was declared elected. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No. 4 Lakhwinder Singh filed a reference u/s 55 of the Act read with Rule 51 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963 challenging the declaration of the petitioner being elected. The ground of challenge was that a vote carrying half stamp on the side of the petitioner and half stamp on the side of respondent No. 4 should have been cancelled and would not have been counted, in favour of the petitioner which was wrongly done. It was also pointed out that the votes of Sohan Singh and Karnail Singh should not have been counted for the reason that they were not the primary members of the Society.

The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab Chandigarh after hearing the parties found that the votes of Karnail Singh and Sohan Singh have been wrongly polled in favour of the petitioner which materially affected the result of the returned candidate and if these votes are deducted, the petitioner could not have been declared elected. The election of the petitioner was, therefore, set aside and respondent No. 4 was declared elected as Director of the respondent Bank. Aggrieved by the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, dated 3.6.1999, the petitioner preferred appeal u/s 68 of the Act before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab Chandigarh who after hearing the parties affirmed the order of the Registrar and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 2.5.2000. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the very outset drew my attention to the operative part of the order dated 3.6.1999 passed by the Registrar and vehemently contended that the whole approach of the Registrar was erroneous, inasmuch as could by no stretch of imagination be held that the votes of Karnail Singh and Sohan Singh have been illegally polled in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that similarly, the Financial Commissioner has also erred in concurring with the view taken by the Registrar in this behalf.

In order to appreciate the contention, it would be useful to highlight the observations of the Registrar made in the order dated 3.6.1999, which read thus:

"Since the votes of Shri Karnail Singh and Shri Sohan Singh have been illegally polled in favour of respondent No. 1 (to writ petitioner), it has materially effected the result of the returned candidate. Two votes were required to be deducted. In this way, respondent No. 1 would have secured only 34 votes whereas admittedly the applicant (respondent No. 4 herein) has secured 36 votes. Accordingly, I accept the petition and set aside the election of Shri Ludhar Ram respondent No. 1 and declare the applicant Lakhwinder Singh and having been elected as a Director of the Bank."

I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities were in error in holding that the votes of Sohan Singh and Karnail Singh ought to be counted in favour of respondent No. 4. Though I agree that the counting of the two votes in question would certainly affect the rest of the election since both the candidates had equal number of votes, but I am of the view that the votes being secret, it could not be found out in whose favour the said two votes were. Even otherwise, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 could not controvert the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner.

In view of the above, I allow this writ petition and set aside impugned orders dated 2.5.2000 and 3.6.1999 declaring respondent No. 4 as having been elected as a Director of the Bank. Instead , I direct that the election in question itself stands vitiated and it, therefore, be held again. No costs.