Nawab Singh vs Registrar Coop.Societies Haryana

S.P. Goyal and I.S. Tiwana, JJ.

The petitioner is a member of The Holi Co operative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Holi, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala, (hereinafter called the ''Society''). This Cooperative Bank Society, which is a primary society is a member of the Ambala Cooperative Ltd., Ambala City (hereinafter called ''the bank''). The voters for the election to the managing committee of the Bank consists of share holders and authorised representatives of member of Cooperative Societies. So far as the representative of a member Cooperative Society is concerned his name and address is required to be sent by the society with a certified copy of the resolution duly attested by an officer, not below the rank of Inspector Co operative Societies incharge of such Cooperative Society. The society sent the name of the petitioner alongwith resolution, which was attested by the Executive Officer of the Bank who was an officer of the rank of Inspector Co operative Society. His name was brought on the tentative list of zones and voters by the Manager of the Bank but was rejected by the Zonal Committee on an objection having been raised by Shri Mewa Singh member of the society that the resolution was not attested by the Inspector Cooperative Societies, incharge of the Society. The validity of the decision of the Zonal Committee, communicated through Annexure P2, has been challenged through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Registrar and the Chairman of the Zonal Committee, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not put in appearance in spite of service. Exparte proceedings, consequently, have been taken against them.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, three preliminary objections have been taken but objections No. 1 and 3 were only pressed at the time of arguments. The first preliminary objection raised is that the petitioner has alternate remedy under section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') of raising a dispute and its determination by the Registrar or his nominee. In support of his contention he has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Daya Nand Chaudhry v. Sh H.L. Sodhi, Additional Registrar (Credit) Co operative Societies, Haryana, 1981 PLJ 86. In the decision relied upon, the nomination papers of one of the candidates had been rejected and the only remaining candidate was declared elected. So it was held that the petitioner was entitled to challenge the election by way of raising a dispute under the said section 55 of the Act. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the noninclusion of his name in the voters'' list. It is highly doubtful if this grievance of the petitioner can be subject matter of the election dispute. Even if it may be so, the remedy of raising an election dispute cannot be said to be an alternate efficacious remedy as thereby he may not be able to successfully challenge the election of the elected candidate on the ground that his name was wrongfully no included in the voters'' list. We, therefore, find no merit in this preliminary objection.

The other preliminary objection raised was that the petitioner has no locus standi as none of his right has been affected and it is only the society who can have any grievance for the noninclusion of the name of its representative in the voters list. Similar objection was raised in Daya Nand Choudhry''s case (supra) and was overruled. We have no reason to take a different view and the second preliminary objection is also rejected.

On merit, Rule 12 of the Election Rules contained in the Appendix ''C'' provides that in case during the consideration of the objections it found that the name of any voter has been included in the voters'' list without a proper resolution or otherwise defective, or where the society has not appointed its representative under subrules (1) and (2) and there are sufficient grounds for not doing so, the Zonal Committee shall direct the society to pass a fresh resolution within the time as may be specified to appoint a representative for the purposes of including the name of the said representative as voter in the final voters list. In the present case it is pleaded that the resolution could not be got attested from the Inspector Incharge of the society as he was not available, which was a sufficient ground for not getting the resolution attested as required. The Zonal Committee was, therefore, bound to afford another opportunity to the society to pass a fresh resolution within a specified time. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents, however, contended that the society had been informed of the defect in the resolution vide Annexure P2 and there was ample time with the society to furnish afresh resolution duly attested, but it never availed of the same. The argument is wholly misconceived vide Annexure P2, the order, whereby the objection was upheld and the name of the petitioner was ordered to be removed, was communicated. Thereafter, there was no occasion for the society to pass a fresh resolution and submit it after getting it attested from the Inspector or Incharge of the Cooperative Societies. Thus the action of the Zonal Committee suffers from a patent illegality. This petition is consequently allowed with costs and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to prepare a fresh voters list in the light of the observations made above and to hold the election from Zone No. 1 thereafter in accordance with law. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/.