Nawal Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar — 1990 DIGILAW 378 (PAT)

Judgment N.P. Singh & Sachchidanand Jha, JJ. This writ application has been filed on behalf or the petitioners alleging that the office-bearers of the Majhaulia Cane Development and Cooperative Marketing Union Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Marketing Union') were duly elected on 24th April, 1990, on the basis of an election programme published on 29.3.1990 by the Election Officer, still a direction has been issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, on 18th July, 1990, to ignore the elections held after 31st March, 1990 and to take steps for holding a fresh election of the office-bearers of the different Co-operative Societies where elections could not be held by 31.3.1990. 2. Sub-sections 14 (9) and 14 (10) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (herein-after referred to as 'the Act') are as follows : "14 (9). Notwithstanding anything contained in the rules or bye-laws of a registered society, the term of the members and the office-bearers of the managing committee of a registered society shall be three cooperative years, and they shall continue to hold office after expiry of their term till the elections are held or for nine months from the close of the co-operative year, whichever is earlier. 14 (10). If, for any reason, elections are not held within the said period after expiry of the term of the members and the office-bearers of the managing committee, the committee shall be deemed to have been superseded with effect from the said date within the meaning of section 41, and thereafter the business of the society shall be carried on in the manner provided by the section : Provided that irrespective of the date when the election is so held, the term of the members and the office-bearers of the managing committee shall be deemed to have commenced from the beginning of the co-operative year in which the elections are held:" 3. If for any reason election is not held after the expiry of the three years term of the members and within the extended period of nine months, in view of sub-section (9) of section 14, the managing committee of such Cooperative Society shall be deemed to have been superseded with effect from the said date under section 41 of the Act. It is an admitted position that so far the present Marketing Union is concerned, the term of the office-bearers, including the extended period, came to an end on 31st March, 1990. 4. From the materials on record it appears that a voter list for holding the election of the office-bearers of the managing committee was prepared in October, 1989. But, on the basis of a direction issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies that during the general elections for the Parliament and Assembly, the election of the office-bearers of the different Co-operative Societies shall remain stayed the election of the office-bearers of the Marketing Union in question was also stayed. After the election of the Assembly was over in March, 1990 the Registrar issued an order directing that the election of the office-bearers of the managing committee of different Co-operative Societies be held. Pursuant to that direction an election programme, in terms of Rule 21-M of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') was issued on 29.3.90. A copy of the said election programme has been annexed to this writ application. From that it appears that 12.4.90 was fixed as the date for filing the nomination papers. Thereafter other stages of die election were notified in that notice. Ultimately, on 24th April, 1990 the office-bearers of the managing committee of the Marketing Union were declared elected. If full effect is given to the direction of the Registrar dated 18th July, 1990 which is under challenge then the election of the office-bearers of the Marketing Union which was completed on 24th April, 1990 has to be ignored and fresh steps have to be taken on the basis of another election programme in terms of the direction of the Registrar. 5. On behalf of the petitioners it was urged that in the instant case as the process of election had commenced prior to 31st March 1990 the election of office-bearers could have been held on the basis of the voter list prepared upto 31st March, 1990. It was also pointed out that the District Panchayat Officer had been appointed as the Election Officer by an order passed by the District Magistrate, Bettiah, and he published the election programme referred to above, on 29.3.1990, on the basis of which the election has been held. It was also pointed out that the District Panchayat Officer had been appointed as the Election Officer by an order passed by the District Magistrate, Bettiah, and he published the election programme referred to above, on 29.3.1990, on the basis of which the election has been held. As such the said election cannot be ignored or declared to be invalid by a general administrative order of the Registrar. 6. When the process of election commences, has been the subject-matter of controversy from time to time. This aspect of the matter has been virtually settled by the Supreme Court saying that election commences from the initial notification calling upon the constituency or the representatives who have to participate at such election by filing nomination papers and it culminates only with the declaration of the result. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of N.P. Ponnuswami vs. The Returning Officer, Namekkal Constituency (AIR 1952 Supreme Court 64) and the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851). In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (supra), it was observed as follows :- "The rainbow of operations, covered by the compendious expression 'election', thus commences from the initial notification and culminates in the declaration of the return of a candidate." Same view has been expressed in the case of Lakshmi Charan Sen and others vs. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and others (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1233). In respect of preparation and revision of the electoral rolls it was pointed out in the case of Lakshmi Charan Sen and others vs. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and others (supra) as follows :- "We have expressed the view that preparation and revision of electoral rolls is a continous process, not connected with any particular election. It may be difficult, consistently with that view, to hold that preparation and revision of electoral roll is a part of the 'election' within the meaning of Article 329 (b). Perhaps, as stated in Halsbury in the passage extracted in Ponnuswami ( AIR 1952 SC 64 ), the facts of such individual case may have to be considered for determining the question whether any particular stage can be said to be a part of the election process in that case. Perhaps, as stated in Halsbury in the passage extracted in Ponnuswami ( AIR 1952 SC 64 ), the facts of such individual case may have to be considered for determining the question whether any particular stage can be said to be a part of the election process in that case. In that event, it would be difficult to formulate a proposition which will apply to all cases alike." A Bench of this Court has also considered that very question in connection with the election of the office-bearers of the managing committee of a Co-operative Society recently in the case of Vidya Singh vs. The State of Bihar and others ( 1989 PLJR 377 ). It has been held that even in respect of the election of the officer-bearers of the managing committee of a Co-operative Society, election shall be deemed to have commenced when a notice is issued calling upon the representatives who have to participate at an election to elect the office-bearers and it culminates only with the declaration of the result. In view of the aforesaid binding judgments, it has to be held that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the election of the office-bearers of the Marketing Union commenced on 29th March, 1990 and culminated on 24th April, 1990 by declaration of the result of such election. 7. As, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the election process commenced before the end of the Co-operative year 1989-90, the office-bearers could have been elected on 24th April, 1990, on the basis of the voter list as on 31st March, 1989. In our opinion, that election cannot be ignored by the Registrar on the basis of an administrative direction which is under challenge. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned communication directing the authorities concerned to ignore the elections of the office-bearers of the different managing committees which have been completed after 31st March, 1990, on the basis of the voter list prepared upto 30th June, 1989, is in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned communication directing the authorities concerned to ignore the elections of the office-bearers of the different managing committees which have been completed after 31st March, 1990, on the basis of the voter list prepared upto 30th June, 1989, is in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Whatever may be said in respect of cases where election process bas commenced after 31st March, 1990, on the basis of a voter list as on 31st March, 1989 and which have not culminated, into declaration of result of the office-bearers of such Co-operative Societies, by an administrative order the declaration of the result of an election, the process of which had commenced prior to 31st March, 1990, on the basis of voter list as on 31st March, 1989, cannot be ignored or declared to be null and void. 8. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed and we direct that no steps be taken pursuant to the direction of the Registrar aforesaid. However, we make it clear that it will be open to any person aggrieved by the result of the election in question to challenge the said election in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.