Sardar Mohammad vs State of Haryana

A.S. Bains, J.

Fresh elections to the Committee of the Central Co operative Bank, Gurgaon, (hereinafter called `the Bank'') were directed to be held on July 25, 1975, by the Registrar respondent No. 2 under the Rules of Election to the Committees of Cooperative Societies (hereinafter called `the Election Rules'') embodied in Appendix `C'' (as in Haryana) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963. Respondent No. 3, who was Returning Officer, issued the election programme under rule 5 of the Election Rules and accordingly exhibition of the voters list of various zones was to be made on May 29, 1975; objection to the constitution of the zones and the voters lists were to be heard on May 29, 1975; certified copies of the resolutions by the Member Cooperative Societies as required by subrule (6) of rule 4 of the Election Rules was to be filed on June 12, 1975; the lists of representatives of membersocieties, who are to act as voters was to be exhibited on June 24, 1975; the nomination papers were to be filed on June 30, 1975; scrutiny of the nomination papers was to be held on July 1, 1975; withdrawal of any of the nomination papers was to take place on July 3, 1975; symbols were to be allocated on July 4, 1975; and the election was to take place on July 25, 1975. In compliance with this election programme published by respondent No. 3, the list of various zones of voters was exhibited on May 23, 1975; objections were heard on May 29, 1975; certified copies of the resolutions by the membersocieties were filed on June 12, 1975; and the list of representatives of membersocieties for acting as voters was exhibited on June 24, 1975. Thus the process of election up to this stage was completed when all of a sudden respondent No. 2 (the Register) issued a stay order by telegram (annexure P. 2) on June 25, 1975, suspending further operation of the election programme in the following terms :

"Election Central Cooperative Bank Gurgaon fixed for 25.7.75 postponed."

It is averred in para 5 of the petition that the Register had postponed the election under some political pressure. It is in this situation that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of respondent No. 2 staying election to the Committee of Bank.

The only point urged by Mr. Balwant Singh Malik, learned counsel of the petitioner, is that the Registrar has no authority in law to postpone indefinitely the process of election midway when all the formalities, necessary for the election, had been validly completed. The return has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 by the Joint Registrar. The facts regarding the election programme and postponement of the election as alleged in the petition are admitted. The relevant para No. 4 is reproduced below :

"In reply to para 4 of the petition it is submitted that according to the election programme chalked out by respondent No. 3 the lists of zones and zonal lists of voters were exhibited by the Manager. The Gurgaon Central Cooperative Band Ltd., Gurgaon in the registered office of the Bank and also in the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer Gurgaon on 23.3.1975 for a period of six days in terms of rule 4(3) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies (Haryana Second Amendment) Rules, 1972. The objections were heard and decided against these lists by the respondent No. 3 on 29.5.75. On 24.6.75 the answering respondent received two complaints one from Shri Har Kishan member of the High Joint Farming Society, tehsil Palwal and the other from Shri Rajpal Singh Director of the Bank to the effect that the lists of voters did not contain the names of various societies which were members of the bank and the zones were (sic) not properly constituted. Rule 4(1) of the aforesaid rules enjoined a statutory duty on the respondents No. 3 to include the names of all the members of the Bank in the list of voters. Since the lists of voters and the constitution of zones formed the basis of the entire election process, the answering respondent considered it necessary to postpone (not stay as alleged) the election. The answering respondent postponed the election bona fide in the interest of the members of the Bank. The allegation that the answering respondent postponed the election illegally is innocent and hence denied."

The only ground for postponing indefinitely the election, as mentioned in para 4 of the return is that two complaints were received by respondent No. 2 to the effect that the list of voters did not contain the names of various societies which were members of the Bank and that the zones were not properly constituted. But this can hardly be a ground for postponing the election. The whole procedure for constitution of zones and the preparation of the zonal lists of voters is laid down in rule 4 of the Election Rules. Rule 3 lays down that the election shall be held on a date fixed by the Register; the election shall be conducted by the Returning Officer and the date fixed for election shall be communicated to the Returning Officer and the Manager of the Cooperative Society concerned at least ninety days before the expiration of the tenure of the committee. Rule 4 of the Election Rules is reproduced below in extenso:

"(1) On receipt of the communication in respect of the date fixed for conducting the election, the Manager shall divide the area of operation of the Cooperative Society into such number of zones as the members of the committee are to be elected in accordance with the strength laid down in the byelaws of the Cooperative Society, and prepare the lists of voters zone wise. If required by the byelaws of the Cooperative Society the zones shall be constituted for each category of voters separately for providing the representation on the committee accordingly. The lists of voters prepared zoneswise shall include all the shareholders admitted to the cooperative society upon the date of receipt of the communication referred to in subrule (4) of rule 3, and duly qualified to vote in the election.

(2) The Manager shall, within a period of ten days of the receipt of communication in respect of the date fixed for conducting the election, submit the proposal referred to in subrule (1) to the Returning Officer for his approval.

(3) The notice indicating the zones constituted and the zonal lists of voters so approved shall be exhibited by the Manager for a period of not less than six days at:

(a) The registered office and the branch office, if any, of the cooperative society ;

(b) the offices of the Assistant Registrar and the Deputy Registrar of

Cooperative Societies located in the area of operation of the Cooperative society; and

(c) such other common places in the area of operation of the cooperative society as the Returning Officer may direct in writing.

(4) Any voter or the shareholder of the cooperative society may, within a period of six days from the date of exhibition of notice, submit his objections to the lists of zones and voters to the Returning Officer.

(5) The notice exhibited under subrule (3) shall also indicate the date, time and place for hearing objections by the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer shall hear and summarily decide the objections. The acceptance or rejection thereof shall be recorded with reasons. He shall there and then finally approve the list of zones and the zonal lists of voters. The zonal lists of voters so finalised shall be priced publications.

(6) The Manager of every membercooperative society shall, within a period of twenty days of the exhibition of the election of the election programme, intimate the Returning Officer the name and other particulars of the representative along with a certified copy of the resolution authorising the representative to act as a voter on its behalf in the election. If the Manager or member cooperative society fails to intimate the name of the representative within the period prescribed, then such cooperative society shall have no right to take part in the elections.

(7) The lists of voters representing the membercooperative societies prepared under subrule (6) shall be exhibited for a period of six days preceding the date fixed for filing the nomination papers, at all the places referred to in subrule (3)."

It will be seen that subrule (1) deals with the constitution of zones and preparation of the zonal lists. It lays down that the Manager shall, on receipt of communication of the date of election, divide the area of operation of the cooperative society into zones and prepare the lists of voters zone wise which shall include all the shareholders admitted to the cooperative society upto the date of receipt of the communication of date of election by him. Under subrule (2) the Manager is required to submit the proposal regarding constitution of zones and zonal list of voters to the Returning Officer for his approval. After the proposal is accepted the Manager shall, under subrule (3) exhibit the notice indicating the zones and zonal lists of voters for a period of not less than six days in the manner prescribed therein. Six days from the date of exhibition of such a notice, any voter or the shareholder of the society may submit his objections to the list of zones and voters to the Returning Officer under subrule (4). Subrule (5) lays down that such objections shall be heard and decided by the Returning Officer, who shall then finally approve the list of zones and voters. This shows that whole procedure is provided as to how the zones are demarcated and the voters list is prepared and then the opportunity is given for filing the objections and after the objections are heard and decided then the list of zones and zonal lists of voters is finally approved. Admittedly, the list of zones and voters was exhibited on May 23, 1975, and the objections were heard on May 29, 1975, as required by subrule (5) of rule 4 of the Election Rules and then the list was finally approved. If anybody had grievance regarding the voters list or the zones, the objections could be filed by him within the prescribed period before the Returning Officer. In the instant case, as noticed earlier two complaints were filed before the Registrar and not before the Returning Officer and that too on 24th June, 1975, after the last date for filing the objections was over. In such a situation Registrar had no authority in law to postpone indefinitely the election by sending a telegram to the Manager of the Bank. I have perused the office record and do not find any order of the Registrar postponing the election. There is only office noting of the Assistant of the office of the Registrar on the complaints followed by the suggestion from the Assistant Registrar that the election may be postponed telegraphically, which was assented to by the Registrar. It does not show that at any stage the Registrar had applied his mind to the case.

Mr. Mehtani, learned counsel for the respondent, contends that the Registrar has inherent powers to postpone the election and for this proposition he places reliance on section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. His argument is that the date of election is to be fixed by the Registrar and so he can also postpone it. I do not find any merit in this contention. Even if the power of altering the date is assumed in the Registrar under section 21 of the General Clauses Act then also the power of postponement of election indefinitely cannot be read in this provision.

In the instant case there was absolutely no justification for the Registrar to postpone the election indefinitely. The two complaints referred to above are regarding the defective zones and the voters list. As stated earlier a fullfledged procedure is laid down in rule 4 of the Election Rules, as to how the zones are constituted and zonal list of voters prepared and how these are published and objections thereto are filed and disposed of. Under subrule (4) of rule 4 of these objections could only be filed before the Returning Officer and not the Registrar. The election process is a democratic process and it cannot be stayed or postponed arbitrarily. In democracy there is Government of laws and not of men. Each authority, however high it may be, is required enjoined upon to perform its duty in accordance with law. If a certain thing is required to be dealt with in a certain manner under the rules, it must be done in that manner alone and not otherwise. Mr. Mehtani could not point out any specific rule or provision of the Act under which the Registrar had postponed the election. In Narinder Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1973 P.L.J. 720, their Lordships of the Division Bench of this Court have observed as under :

"As provided under rule 6 of Appendix `C'' of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, a person can object to the eligibility of a person who has filed the nomination papers at the time of the scrutiny. If such an objection is raised, the same has to be decided by the Returning Officer after making such inquiry as he may consider necessary. By its very nature, such an inquiry will be a summary one. If such an objection is overruled or if such an objection is not raised at the time of scrutiny, to allow such a question to be raised as a dispute arising out of an election, liable to be referred to the arbitrator, would have the tendency of delaying, inordinately, the entire process of election."

This case related to the election of the Managing Committee of the Pathankot Cooperative MarketingcumProcessing Society Ltd., Pathankot. Three persons filed the nomination papers on the date fixed for filing the same. On scrutiny, the Returning Officer accepted nomination papers of all the three candidates including Narinder Singh. Later on, an application was filed before the Deputy Registrar alleging that the nomination papers of Narinder Singh had been wrongly accepted because he was a defaulter of the Cooperative Bank. The Deputy Registrar entertained this application and thinking that a dispute had arisen about the election, assumed jurisdiction to arbitrate in the matter under section 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Society Act, 1961, and stayed election of zone No. 2 during the pendency of reference. It was in that situation that their Lordships of the Division Bench had held that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain any reference and postpone the election midway.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order (Annexure P. 2) of the Registrar postponing the election indefinitely is quashed and the respondents are directed to complete the election process from the stage it was postponed. Counsel''s fee Rs. 250/.