The Dashmesh Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Ltd. and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the

core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of election held on 22.12.2010, Manjinder

Singh Dhillon son of Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.8) was elected from Zone No.9 as the Director of The Jalandhar Central Cooperative Bank

Limited (respondent No.4). The petitioners, The Dashmesh Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Ltd. and Pal Singh challenged his

election, by means of election petition under sections 55/56 of The Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 read with Rule 51 framed thereunder

(hereinafter to be referred as ""the Act and relevant Rules""). The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies -respondent No.3 (Election Tribunal) set

aside the election of respondent No.8 and ordered the fresh elections of the indicated post of Director, by virtue of impugned order dated

30.5.2011 (Annexure P1), which, in substance, is as under:

After examining the concerned files, documents and the record of the Society regarding the case and registration file of the Bal Cooperative Fruit

and Vegetables Growers Marketing Society Limited produced by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the concerned record

produced by The Jalandhar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Jalandhar, I arrived at the conclusion that there is no proof in the proceeding book

of the Bal Cooperative Fruit and Vegetables Growers Marketing Society Limited regarding the authorization to contest the election produced by

Sh.Manjinder Singh Dhillon to participate in the election of Board of Directors of The Jalandhar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Jalandhar held

on 22.12.2010. He failed to produce any document or receipt regarding the membership of the Society. The membership register produced by

him cannot be treated as a original register. In the membership register produced by the Society, there is no proof that Sh.Manjinder Singh Dhillon

is a member of this Society. He was not eligible to contest the election of the Bank as representative of the Society, as he was not member of the

Society. Keeping in view the above said, I, Kamaldeep Singh Sangha P.C.S. (1), Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar Division,

Jalandhar allow the present petition filed in this Court and set aside the election of Zone No.9 of the Board of Directors of The Jalandhar Central

Cooperative Bank Limited, Jalandhar held on 22.12.2010. The prayer for declaring the petitioner as elected Director is rejected. The fresh

election of the Director from this zone be held. The order in this case has been announced on 30.05.2011in Open Court in the presence of the

parties.

Dissatisfied with the impugned order (Annexure P1), the petitioners filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Addl.Registrar (D),

Cooperative Societies (respondent No.2), through the medium of impugned order dated 16.9.2011 (Annexure P2).

Aggrieved by the impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P2), the petitioners filed the revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Financial

Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab (respondent No.1), by way of impugned order dated 3.11.2011 (Annexure P3).

The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P3), invoking

the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the

entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition.

Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that once the election of respondent No.8 was set aside by the Election Tribunal, through the medium

of impugned order (Annexure P1), then petitioner No.2 ought to have been declared elected on the post of Director, is not only devoid of merit

but misplaced as well.

The learned counsel for petitioners has miserably failed to point out any specific provisions of law in the Act or the rules, wherein, it was

provided that if the election of elected candidate is set aside, then the defeated candidate could legally be declared elected. To me, the Joint

Registrar has rightly negatived the claim of petitioners in this respect.

Not only that, the appellate and revisional authorities have further upheld the order (Annexure P1), by virtue of impugned orders (Annexures P2

and P3), the operative part of which (Annexure P2) is as under:

After hearing the arguments of both the parties and examining the record, I, Nisha Rana, Additional Registrar (D), Cooperative Societies Punjab

arrived at the conclusion that in view of the provisions of the Act rules and election guideline, if the election of one candidate is set aside then the

remaining other candidate is (sic. not) to be declared elected. There is no force in the argument that Respondent No.6 has not challenged the order

dated 30.05.2011 passed by Respondent no.1 by way of filing an appeal and therefore he should be declared elected. Though Respondent no.6

has not challenged the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by Respondent No.1 by way of filing an appeal and admitted the order to be correct even

then the Appellant cannot take any benefit from it because the election petition has been decided on the basis of Act, Rules and Election Guidelines

as per which if the election of one candidate is set aside then the second candidate (defeated candidate) cannot be declared elected even if his

election petition is accepted. Therefore keeping in view the above said, the present appeal is dismissed and it is directed to hold the election of

Zone No.9 within 3 months.

At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to

how and in what manner, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P3) are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant direction.

Meaning thereby, the authorities below have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such orders, containing valid reasons,

cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of

India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel

for the petitioners, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P3) deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the

case.

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioners.

In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such.