Managing Committee Dhagana Co-op. Agricultural Service Society vs Sarabjit Singh Sandhu

R.N. Mittal, J.

The facts of the present case as given in the petition are that there is a Primary Cooperative Society in village Dhagana known as Dhagana Cooperative Agricultural Service Society. Village and Post Office, Dhagana (hereinafter referred to as `the Society'') which is registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act''. The Managing Committee of the Society consisted of five members. Before the expiry of three years, a fresh election of the Managing Committee was held on January 14, 1973, in which Chanchal Singh was elected as President, Hira Singh, son of Balak Singh, as VicePresident, Shrimati Gurbachan Kaur, wife of Dr. Gurdip Singh, as Cashier, Inder Singh, son of Shri Thakar Singh and Lakha Singh, son of Shri Bhagat Singh, as members of the Committee. The election was held in the presence of Mr. Raghbir Singh, Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Patti. Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Tarn Taran respondent No. 1, vide order, dated February 22, 1974, mala fide and on extraneous considerations under pressure and influence of Mr. Sher Singh. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dhagana, respondent No. 3 and Gurmel Singh, Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Patti Block, respondent No. 4, appointed Administrator under section 26(1D) of the Act for a period of six months. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of respondent No. 1. The writ petition has been contested by respondent No. 1. it is inter alia stated by him that no election of the Managing Committee was held and the impugned order was not passed by him mala fide or with extraneous consideration or under the pressure of any person.

The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Managing Committee of the Society had been legally elected on January 14, 1973, and was functioning since then. Respondent No. 1 could not appoint Administrator of the Society under section 26(1D) of the Act. He further says that if he wanted to appoint Administrator, he should have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner before doing so.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. In order to decide this question, it is necessary to notice some provisions of the Act, the Punjab Cooperative Societe Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules'') and Appendix `C''. According to subsection (1B) of section 26, the term of office of committee is three years. Subsection (1C) provides that each committee shall, 90 days before the expiry of its term, make arrangements for constitution of a new committee in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules and bylaws made thereunder. Subsection (1D) says that where the committee had ceased to hold office and no committee has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules and bylaws, the Registrar shall appoint an Administrator. The said sub section is as follows :

"(1D) Where any committee has ceased to hold office and no committee has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules and byelaws made thereunder, the Registrar may, by an order in writing appoint a Government servant as an Administrator for such period, as may from time to time, be specified in the order and the Administrator shall before the expiry of the period of his appointment, arrange for the constitution of a new committee in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules and byelaws made thereunder :

Provided that the total period for which an Administrator may be appointed shall not in any case exceed one year and six months and in case such period is to be extende beyond one year, the Registrar shall record his reasons in writing for such extension."

A reading of subsection (1C) and (1D) of section 26 shows that arrangements for constitution of a new committee have to be made by each committee 90 days before the expiry of its term and by the Administrator before the expiry of the period of his appointment. Subsection (1D) also shows that the Registrar has the power the appoint an Administrator where any committee has ceased to hold office and no committee ha been constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the rules and the bylaws. Section 55 relates to the disputes which may be referred to arbitration. It says that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society arises between persons specified in the section, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision. The dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of the cooperative society has been defined in subsection (2). It includes any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the Society. The `officer'' has been defined in section 2(h) and it includes a member of the Committee. Thus it is evident that if any dispute arises with respect to the election of any member of a committee, the same is to be referred to the Registrar under section 55 of the Act. Rule 23 says that the members of the committee of a cooperative society shall be elected in accordance with the rules given in Appendix `C''. Chapter VII of the Rules relates to settlement of disputes and it prescribes the procedure which is to be followed in case a dispute arises. It starts with rule 51 and ends with rule 57. Rule 51 provides that when a party to the dispute referred to in subsection (1) of section 55 desires to have the dispute determined in accordance with the said section, the party shall apply to the Registrar in writing stating the substance of the dispute and the names and addresses of the other party in such form as the Registrar may lay down from time to time. Rule 52 relates to the arbitration fee. Rule 53 provides that in an arbitration proceeding, the Registrar, or the arbitrator, as the case may be, shall communicate the date, time and place of hearing the dispute to all the parties concerned. Rule 55 prescribes the mode in which the hearing has to take place before the Registrar or the Arbitrator. It days that the Registrar or the Arbitrator shall hear the parties and the witnesses who attend. He shall give a decision in writing on the basis of ht oral and documents evidence produced before him in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience. It also provides that if a party does not appear who has been summoned, the Registrar/Arbitrator may proceed ex parte. Clause 12(2) of Appendix `C'' states that if any dispute arises in connection with the election of any officer of the society, it shall be referred within 90 days of the date of declaration of the result of such election, to the Registrar in the same manner as provided in rule 51 of the Rules. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that in case, an Administrator is to be appointed, the Registrar has to proceed under section 26 (ID). In that case, no procedure has been prescribed in the rules. He has to find out before appointing an Administrator that the committee which was functioning had ceased to hold office and no committee had been constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, rules and bylaws. It does not prescribe that he has to serve any notice before doing so to any person. On the other hand, if an election dispute arises between the parties, the dispute is to be settled by the Registrar/Arbitrator, the case may be, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Chapter VII. It is specifically mentioned in the Chapter, as already stated above, that a notice shall have to be served to all the concerned parties. On a comparative study of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that in case of an election dispute between the individual parties, it was considered proper to serve notices on the other parties before adjudicating the same whereas in the case of appointment of Administrator, such a procedure was not considered necessary. The aforesaid circumstances clearly go to show that it is not necessary for the Registrar to serve notice before appointment of an Administrator under section 26(1D) of the Act. The principles of natural justice are not applicable in such a situation.

The other question that arises for determination whether the Managing Committee of the Society had been legally elected on January 14, 1973. A procedure has been prescribed in Appendix `C'' as to how the Returning Officer is to be appointed, the election programme is to be drawn and the election is to be held. Subclause (c) of clause (1) defines the `Returning Officer''. According to it, Returning Officer means the Registrar or any person authorised by him in this behalf by a special or general order. Clause (4) relates to election programme. Subclause (1) says that the Manager shall draw a detailed programme of election and send the same to the Registrar for approval and for the appointment of Returning Officer for conducting the election. Under subclause (2), zonal list of voters is to be prepared, if necessary, by the Manager in accordance with the directions issued by the Registrar from time to time. Subclause (3) provides that the notice indicating the election programme together with the zones constituted shall be exhibited at the registered office of the cooperative society and at some common places in the area of operation of the cooperative society. It further provides that that would be in addition to any other mode of notice which may be laid down either in the byelaws or may be specified by the Registrar by a general or special order. Clause (9) says that the Returning Officer may appoint Presiding Officer for each polling station and also Polling Officers and Polling Assistants to assist the Presiding Officer to conduct the poll. It also provides that the Presiding Officer shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Registrar from time to time. A reading of the aforesaid rules shows that in case a Returning Officer is not appointed by the Registrar and the election programme is not approved by him for conducting the election, the election if held shall be illegal and can be ignored by the Registrar. In such circumstances, it is no election in the eye of law and would be treated as nonest. Similar view was taken by me in Shri Munshi Ram and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1974 P.L.J. 22. The committee elected in such an election cannot be held to be constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. In the present case, the Assistant Registrar did not appoint any Returning Officer which is sine qua non for holding an election. Thus it was no election in the eye of law and it was rightly ignored by the Registrar. In this situation it was not necessary that a notice should have been served upon the committee before appointing an Administrator. Mr. Shant has argued that the Registrar in letter dated October 25, 1969, (Annexure P12) had mentioned the officers, who could act as Returning Officers for various types of cooperative societies and a Sub Inspector, Cooperative Societies, could do so for the election of the primary cooperative societies. He states that the election in the present case had been held by a SubInspector and was, therefore, valid. I am unable to accept this contention. The letter mentions the officers by designation who can be appointed as Returning Officer. The Registrar is required to nominate an officer having that designation as Returning Officer for election of a co operative society under Appendix `C''. If an election is held by a Sub Inspector of Cooperative Societies, who is not appointed as Returning Officer for that election, such an election is not valid.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations in Civil Writ No. 2411 of 1973. The Waltoha, Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., v. Waltoha, District Amritsar, and others, decided on November 6, 1973. In that case the Assistant Registrar in a dispute referred to him by the Registrar, had passed an order of removal of the committee of Waltoha Cooperative Agricultural Service Society elected on June 18, 1872. The learned Judge set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar on the ground that it violated the principles of natural justice and ordered that the Assistant Registrar could decide the matter afresh after notice. the Assistant Registrar in the above case had removed the committee on reference of a dispute by the Registrar. The observations of the learned Judge are to be read in the context. It does not appear from the judgment that the learned Judge has laid down that in all cases where the action is to be taken under section 26(ID) of the Act, notice has to be served on the other party. In any case, if that was the intention of the learned Judge, with due respects to him, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid case does not lay down the correct law. He has then referred to Civil Writ No. 2792 of 1973, The Managing Committee, The Domanda Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, village Domanda, Tehsil and District Jullundur v. The State of Punjab and others, decided on May 23, 1974. In that case, after the expiry of term of office of the managing committee of a cooperative society, a general meeting of that society was convened for holding an election of the members of the committee on January 22, 1973. In accordance with the provisions of Appendix `C'' the matter was referred to the Assistant Registrar for appointment of the Returning Officer. He passed an order on January 20, 1973, appointing Daljit Singh, Sub Inspector, Cooperative Societies as Returning Officer for that meeting. The order was despatched to Daljit Singh on the day fixed for election that is January 22,1973. Therefore, he could not act as Returning Officer. Another Sub Inspector who was incharge of the circle in which the society was included acted as the Returning Officer at the meeting of the society and conducted the elections. An order under section 26(ID) was passed by the Assistant Registrar which was impugned in the above writ petition. The learned Judge quashed the order observing that the election of the Committee was substantial compliance of the provisions of Part II of Appian `C''. No general principle of law has been laid down in the case. The observations show that the decision was taken on the peculiar facts of the case. In case, the learned Judge intended to lay down that the election held without appointment of the Returning Officer and following the procedure as laid down in clause 4, is good, with due respect to him, I am of the view that his interpretation of law cannot be accepted correct.

The learned counsel for the writpetitioner has also placed reliance on Gurnam Singh and others v. The Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Rajpura and others, 1973 P.L.J. 566. In that case, the Assistant Registrar had passed an order that he had heard the parties in connection with an election dispute and that the election was contrary to the provisions of the Act, the rules and the byelaws. He therefore, ordered removal of the managing committee under section 26(ID) of the Act with immediate effect. He also appointed an Administrator. That order was challenged in this Court. The case came up before me and I observed that subsection (ID) of section 26 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act did not give powr to the Registrar to set aside the election of the committee. In the same context, I also held that the Registrar could not appoint an Administrator if the election was against the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the byelaws. The observations made by me were on peculiar facts of that case. I never meant that an election held against the provisions of the Act and the Rules, could not be ignored. In case, the election is held against the provisions of the rules, the Registrar can ignore the same and pass an order for appointment of an Administrator under section 26(ID) of the Act. In the present case, the Assistant REgistrar has not set aside the election. The petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the above observations. For the reasons recorded above, I reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The second contention of the learned for the petitioner is that the order has been passed mala fide by respondent No. 1. It is submitted by him that various complaints had been made by the members of the managing committee against Mr. Gurmel Singh, SubInspector of Cooperative Societies on whose report the Administrator had been appointed. He has referred to various complaints made against him. He further submits that from the aforesaid facts, it is clear that respondent No. 1 was in collusion with Mr. Gurmel Singh and he passed the order mala fide. In the return, Mr. Sarbjit Singh respondent No. 1, has specifically denied that he has taken the decision mala fide. He has further stated that he appointed the Administrator as the period of the existing managing committee had come to an end. I regret our inability to hold that the action has been taken by respondent No. 1 mala fide. The allegations have been specifically denied by the said respondent. There is no such fact existing on the record by which his mala fide can be inferred. The fact that he placed reliance on the report of the SubInspector is not sufficient to hold mala fide of respondent No. 1. He has stated in his return that he never approved the election programme and, therefore, the election even if held cannot be recognised under law. It appears from the return and the order that he did not set aside any election. In my opinion, he has interpreted the law correct. After taking into consideration his affidavit and the provisions of law, it cannot be held that the decision taken by him is mala fide. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.