Ram Kishan vs Registrar Co-operative Societies, Haryana and ors.

S.S. Kang and J.S. Sekhon, JJ.

The sole controversy in this writ petition is whether during the pendency of an election petition filed against the election of the petitioner as Director of Samalkha Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Samalkha (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), could the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies restrain the petitioner from taking part in the proceedings of the Bank.

The factual position of the case is that Ram Kishan, petitioner was elected as Director of the Bank by defeating Akhe Ram, respondent No. 2. The said Akhe Ram, then filed election petition on various grounds, including that he was declared elected at the first instance but on recounting of votes the petitioner was declared elected wrongly. During the pendency of this election petition, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies passed the exparte adinterim order dated 5th October, 1988, copy Annexure P2, restraining the petitioner from taking part in the proceedings of the Bank till the disposal of this petition. The petitioner had challenged this order on the ground that it will amount to prejudging the cause and accepting the election petition beside debarring him from exercising the right in the election of the Board of Directors. Presiding Officer and the other officebearers, which is required to be completed within 60 days under section 30 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thus, it was maintained that the fundamental right of the petitioner had been taken away before the decision of the election petition. Certain allegations of extraneous consideration were also imputed to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2, who resisted this petition contended that there are very good chances of his election petition being accepted and the dilatory tactics on the part of the petitioner in not accepting the service of the election petition clearly called for the passing of impugned order. Respondent No. 3 simply denied the allegations in the writ petition. It was also contended that the impugned order was rightly passed by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies.

There is no dispute between the parties that an election dispute between the members of the Societies is covered by clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 102 of the Act. Such a dispute is required to be referred to the Registrar under subsection (4) of this section. Subsection (4) of Section 103 of the Act empowers the Registrar to pass such interlocutory order as he deems necessary in the interest of justice during the pendency of such proceedings. There is considerable force in the contention of Mr. Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner that such like interlocutory orders embrace only dispute regarding the payment of debt etc., between the members of the Society and the Society, but would not amount to taking away fundamental right of an elected Director to participate in the proceedings of the Bank or in the election of the officebearers. Moreover, the Registrar was enjoined upon to make out a justifiable cause for passing such harsh orders, but strange enough he had not done so. There is no legal justification for debarring a duly elected Director from taking part in the proceedings of the institution as that will amount to negating the mandate of the electorate.

For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is accepted at the motion stage and the impugned order. Annexure P2 is hereby quashed. There is, however, no order as to costs.