Prem Chand Gupta vs State of Haryana

P.C. Jain, J.

Prem Chand Gupta has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the Assistant Registrar, Co operative Societies, Ambala, dated 25th June, 1973, copy Annexure "C" to the petition, by which the nomination papers were rejected. The relevant facts which are necessary for the decision of the point agitated before me read as under :

The petitioner is a member of the Rama Moulding Works Agricultural Implements Production Cooperative Industrial Society Ambala Cantt (hereinafter referred to as the Rama Society). The election to the Board of Directors of the Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the Cooperative Bank) was ordered to be held by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh. The election was to be held on 10th May, 1973. The petitioner filed his nomination papers to contest the office as one of Directors of the Cooperative Bank. The said nomination papers were rejected by the Assistant Registrar, who was the Returning Officer, on the ground which is reproduced below :

"Your nomination papers are rejected on the grounds that you are member of the Ashoka FurniturecumSteel Jute Matting Coop. Industrial Society which is a defaulter society as per list provided by the Ambala Central Coop. Bank Ltd., Ambala City and therefore you are not eligible for contesting the election under Rule 25(a) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963.

Your nomination papers as representative of the Ambala Cantt. Ghee Makers Coop. Industrial Society is also rejecting on the above grounds."

As earlier observed, the petitioner by way of this petition, has challenged the order of the Returning Officer, rejecting his nomination papers.

Separate written statements have been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3,4 and 5.

The only contention raised before me by Mr. Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the nomination papers of the petitioner could not legally be rejected as he was not in default to any Cooperative Society in respect of any sum due from him to the Society, nor did he owe to any Society an amount exceeding his maximum credit limit. According to the learned counsel, the Returning Officer by rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner, exercised jurisdiction which was not vested in him. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to support the order of rejection on the ground that the petitioner begin a member of the Ashoka Society which was a defaulter, could not contest the selection and that the Returning Officer rightly rejected his nomination papers.

Rule 25(a) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), under which the nomination papers of the petitioner, had been rejected, reads as under :

"No person shall be eligible for election as a member of the committee if :

(a) he is in default to any cooperative society in respect of any sum due from him to the society or owes to any cooperative society an amount exceeding his maximum credit limit."

A little scrutiny of the aforesaid rule would show that the contention of Mr. Sandhur that the petitioner could in no sense be considered as a defaulter and eligible to contest the election has considerable force. However, the learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order on the ground that the word ''person'' would also include a `Cooperative Societies'' but this contention is hardly of any consequence in the instant case. No doubt, the petitioner is a member of the two societies which are defaulters, but it has been overlooked by the Returning Officer that the petitioner has not filed his nomination papers as a representative of those two societies and has filed his nomination papers as a representative of the Rama Society, which is admittedly not a defaulter. In this situation, I fail to see how the petitioner could be debarred from contesting the election in that capacity. The learned counsel for the respondents could not advance any cogent reason to refute this unassailable position of the petitioner.

Faced with this situation, the learned counsel took the stand that the petitioner was personally in default to the Cooperative Bank as he had undertaken to repay the loan which had been borrowed by the Ashoka Society, by hypothecating his property. Even if this fact is correct, the petitioner would not become a defaulter as the loan was taken by the Ashoka Society and it would be that Society which in the eye of law would be deemed to be a defaulter. The recovery may be made from the petitioner or from any other member (if there is any) of that Society, but to contend that the petitioner is a defaulter to the Cooperative Bank would not be justified.

Further, the language of the rule does not permit such an interpretation. Under rule 25(a), the person has to be in default to any Cooperative Society in respect of any sum due from him to the Society. There is no sum due from the petitioner to the Cooperative Bank nor is he in default to the Cooperative Bank. The loan was advanced to Ashoka Society and the Ashoka Society is the defaulter. In this view of the matter. I hold that the petitioner was not a defaulter, that he was eligible to contest the election as representative of the Rama Society and that his nomination papers were illegally rejected by the Returning Officer.

For the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition with costs and quash the order of the Returning Officer, dated 25th June, 1973, by which nomination papers of the petitioner were rejected.