JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral) - Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 17.06.2014 (Annexure P-17) passed by respondent no.1 whereby revision petition filed by respondents no.5 and 6 has been accepted, in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner and in a pre-determined mind and respondent no.4 has been directed to convene a fresh meeting on 19.06.2014 and to send its representatives despite the election process having been put into motion vide order dated 06.06.2014 passed by the Registrar or in alternative for declaring the provisions contained in Section 115 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (in short ‘1984 Act’) as ultra vires. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing the alternative relief in view of the order dated 07.07.2014 passed by a Division Bench which reads as under: “Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana states that the short affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 be also read as affidavit of respondents No.1 and 3. A copy of that affidavit has been handed over in Court today to learned counsel for the petitioner as she pleaded that no copy had been given to her. Written statements of respondents No.4 and 6 are already on record. Respondent No.5 appearing in person does not wish to file any reply. Replication, if any, be filed by tomorrow. We find from perusal of the prayer clause that there is no prayer qua challenge to any statutory power and, thus, the matter is merely an election dispute over the voters list. As per roster, the matter would, thus, have to be listed before the learned Single Judge. List as per roster before the learned Single Judge on 09.07.2014.” 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts relevant for disposal of this petition are to the effect that the petitioner is a member of the Dighal Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society. There are nearly 24 Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (in short ‘PACSes’) and 263 other Cooperative Societies which are affiliated members of the Jhajjar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Jhajjar (in short ‘Cooperative Bank’). The aforesaid 24 PACSes are funded by the Cooperative Bank and as a consequence thereof, one nominee i.e. CEO, being the financial head, is a member on the board, of all 24 PACSes. The aforesaid 24 PACSes are funded by the Cooperative Bank and as a consequence thereof, one nominee i.e. CEO, being the financial head, is a member on the board, of all 24 PACSes. As per the bye-laws and regulations, election of the Board of Directors of Cooperative Bank is held after every five years. The zonal committee has created seven zones for 24 PACSes and three zones have been created for 263 cooperative societies. In all, 287 votes are sent by all the affiliated members for election of the Board of Directors of the Cooperative Bank. The election for Board of Directors of the Cooperative Bank was due on 03.07.2014, as term of five years has expired. The Zonal Committee of the Cooperative Bank in its meeting decided to write to all its affiliated members to send their votes on or before 28.04.2014. The written letters were sent to all the members on 26.03.2014 and a publication to that effect also appeared in the newspaper on 26.03.2014. The Dighal, PACS issued notice dated 11.04.2014 convening an ordinary meeting on 26.04.2014. As per rules, 15 days’ notice is required to be given for the meeting of the General Body. During routine inspection of the Dighal PACS, CEO of the Cooperative Bank found that notice of the meeting along with agenda had not been sent to the nominee member and she made a remark in the agenda book. On finding it difficult to hold a secret meeting without associating the CEO, the Dighal, PACS forwarded the agenda of the scheduled meeting to be held on 26.04.2014 to the CEO. The CEO send her remarks on 24.04.2014 that she had not been served with 15 days clear notice, as required under the provisions of the statute. In that eventuality, the Dighal, PACS convened the meeting of its Managing Committee on 24.04.2014 and postponed the meeting scheduled to be held on 26.04.2014. 4. After having postponed the meeting to be held on 26.04.2014, the respondent-society moved application before the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Jhajjar on 24.04.2014 seeking permission to convene the emergency meeting of the Managing Committee on 28.04.2014. In the said application, the respondent-society did not disclose the fact of having fixed the earlier meeting on 26.04.2014 and its postponement. The Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Jhajjar granted permission to convene an emergency meeting of the Managing Committee on 28.04.2014. In the said application, the respondent-society did not disclose the fact of having fixed the earlier meeting on 26.04.2014 and its postponement. The Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Jhajjar granted permission to convene an emergency meeting of the Managing Committee on 28.04.2014. Against that, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Rohtak, who stayed the holding of the meeting. Despite the stay order, the respondent-society held the meeting. Thereafter to show that the stay order was not received in time, they tampered with the minutes of the meeting by inserting the time as 10.10 A.M. The Zonal Committee of the Cooperative Bank, Jhajjar issued a tentative voter list on 06.05.2014 in which names of respondents no.5 and 6 were included. All the concerned were called upon to file their objections to the tentative voter list and publication was also effected in that regard. It was also disclosed that meeting of the Zonal Committee for deciding the objections, if any received, would be held on 23.05.2014 at 11.00 A.M. Respondents no.5 and 6 moved application seeking vacation of stay before the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies. When the application seeking vacation of stay was taken up by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, it transpired that minutes of the meeting dated 28.04.2014 were tampered with by inserting the time at a later stage. Consequently, the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies took serious note of the same and keeping in view the same, respondents no.5 and 6 gave in writing for withdrawal of their application for vacation of stay. However, the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies did not agree to the said request of respondents no.5 and 6 and matter was kept pending for decision on merits. 5. Respondents no.5 and 6 despite having withdrawn their application for vacation of stay, filed revision petition before the Principal Secretary Cooperation, against the order dated 16.05.2014 passed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies. The Principal Secretary Cooperation stayed further proceedings of the zonal committee with regard to the case of respondents no.5 and 6, vide order dated 20.05.2014. The stay order came to be vacated by the Principal Secretary Cooperation, vide order dated 29.05.2014, and Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies was called upon to take a decision with regard to last four lines of order dated 16.05.2014. The stay order came to be vacated by the Principal Secretary Cooperation, vide order dated 29.05.2014, and Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies was called upon to take a decision with regard to last four lines of order dated 16.05.2014. Feeling aggrieved against order dated 29.05.2014 passed by Principal Secretary, Cooperation, respondents no.5 and 6 filed CWP No.11801 of 2014 before this Court. Simultaneously, they participated in the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies on 03.06.2014 without disclosing the fact of filing writ petition. However, that writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Zonal Committee met on 04.06.2014 and rejected the votes of respondents no.5 and 6 on the ground that meeting of the Managing Committee of respondent no.4, had been held in contravention to the stay order as also to the time schedule provided in the statute. 6. It is pleaded that private respondents preferred another revision before the Principal Secretary, Cooperation against the order dated 03.06.2014 passed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies. The Principal Secretary, vide order dated 10.06.2014 which was already typed and was in the case file, set aside the order dated 03.06.2014 passed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies and directed the matter to be heard by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 10.06.2014 passed by the Principal Secretary, the petitioner filed CWP No.11975 of 2014. The order dated 10.06.2014 was set aside and matter was remitted to the Principal Secretary to decide the same on merits after hearing the affected parties. In compliance of directions of this Court, the Principal Secretary issued notice to the parties on 12.06.2014, itself, for 17.06.2014. The petitioner along with his counsel appeared before the Principal Secretary and was shocked to find that the order was already typed and was straightway pronounced without hearing the arguments. There was no power vested with the Principal Secretary to extend the period for sending the nominees, as directed vide impugned order dated 17.06.2014. Hence, this writ petition. 7. Upon notice, respondent no.2 filed his separate short reply denying the averments of the petition. However, no parawise reply to writ petition was submitted. 8. Respondent no.4 filed written statement pleading that similar relief for declaring Section 115 of the 1984 Act, ultra vires, was sought by the petitioner in earlier CWP No.11975 of 2014 which was disposed of on 12.06.2014. However, no parawise reply to writ petition was submitted. 8. Respondent no.4 filed written statement pleading that similar relief for declaring Section 115 of the 1984 Act, ultra vires, was sought by the petitioner in earlier CWP No.11975 of 2014 which was disposed of on 12.06.2014. The petitioner has concealed the material fact that the order dated 24.04.2014 passed by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Jhajjar was impugned vide which permission was granted to respondent no.4 to hold short notice meeting. The basic claim has been accepted by the Principal Secretary, Cooperation, Haryana and now he has no locus standi to file the present petition. It was also pleaded that when selection process has started, same cannot be postponed and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. Respondent no.6 also filed separate written statement by way of affidavit that there is no violation of Section 28(2) of the 1984 Act. The dispute with regard to non-inclusion of name of the representative of the society for the election of Board of Directors does not constitute an election dispute. The petitioner has never challenged the right of respondent no.6 to participate in the process of election. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition and he has not been prejudiced by any proceedings arising out of the dispute. The petitioner is a defaulting member. The permission was granted by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies for emergency meeting on short notice. Other averments in petition have been denied and dismissal of the petition has been prayed for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the meeting was called for 26.04.2014 and for that an agenda was to be circulated on 11.04.2014, however, no copy of agenda was circulated to the CEO. The CEO during routine checking of society on 22.04.2014 found that copy of agenda has not been circulated to her and a note in this regard was appended on record. Thereafter, the agenda was sent to her on 23.04.2014 for meeting to be held on 26.04.2014. However, the meeting for date fixed was postponed without any authority and the permission was obtained for conducting an emergency meeting on 28.04.2014 without disclosing the true facts. For such type of meeting, a period of seven days is required. Thereafter, the agenda was sent to her on 23.04.2014 for meeting to be held on 26.04.2014. However, the meeting for date fixed was postponed without any authority and the permission was obtained for conducting an emergency meeting on 28.04.2014 without disclosing the true facts. For such type of meeting, a period of seven days is required. Section 21 of the 1984 Act specifically provides that every member of a cooperative society shall exercise his vote in person and no member shall be permitted to vote by proxy. It is also provided that a cooperative society which is a member of another cooperative society must, subject to the rules, appoint one of the committee members through a resolution of its committee to vote on its behalf in the affairs of the other society and in case of a primary society which is a member of another cooperative society may, subject to the rules, appoint one of the members to vote on its behalf in the affairs of other society. Learned counsel further contended that Rule 110 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Rules, 1989 (in short ‘1989 Rules’) provides that at least fifteen days clear notice, specifying the date, place, time and agenda for a meeting of a general body, committee and at least seven days clear notice for a meeting of any smaller body set up by either of them, whether convened by the Registrar, is mandatory. It is also provided that a short notice may be given to all the members of the general body committee or smaller body, as the case may be, with the permission of the Registrar or under his direction. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Chief Executive Officer, Cooperative Bank wrote a letter dated 24.04.2014 (Annexure P-2) to the effect that agenda had been sent in violation of Rule 110 of the1989 Rules, as the same had been issued after the remarks recorded by the Chief Executive Officer, Cooperative Bank on 22.04.2014 which was received in the bank on 23.04.2014. As such, the meeting to be held on 26.04.2014 is invalid and against the rules. He also informed that cutting/overwriting/alteration has been made in Col. No.11 which seems to be written subsequently and the same proves the malafide intention of respondent no.4. The meeting date cannot be changed, once it has been duly notified and published in the newspaper. As such, the meeting to be held on 26.04.2014 is invalid and against the rules. He also informed that cutting/overwriting/alteration has been made in Col. No.11 which seems to be written subsequently and the same proves the malafide intention of respondent no.4. The meeting date cannot be changed, once it has been duly notified and published in the newspaper. Perusal of proceedings-book (Annexure P-7) indicates that time of the meeting has been added just to claim that the meeting was already over; the same was done in spite of stay order. There is a tampering by way of addition of time in the proceedings book. The stay was granted by Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Rohtak, however, respondents no.5 and 6 moved application seeking vacation of stay. The meeting was held by mentioning the time and it was also tried to show that stay granted by the Deputy Registrar was not in their notice. 13. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent no.6 contended that order (Annexure P-10) passed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies is contrary to the provisions of Section 128(2) of the 1984 Act. Respondent no.6-Pardeep Ahlawat was aggrieved against the last four lines of order (Annexure P-10) whereby it was said that petitioner herein has already been given relief by the court on 28.04.2014 staying the meeting fixed for 28.04.2014 of the Dighal, PACS, therefore, no further order is required. The impugned order (Annexure P-12) is legal and valid. 14. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. 15. Perusal of vernacular of proceedings book (Annexure P-7) indicates that words “10:10” denoting the time has been added/written subsequently and a note is given that copy of stay order was received at 11.40 A.M on 28.04.2014. Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact that for the meeting to be held on 26.04.2014, due notice and publication was made in the newspaper but agenda was not forwarded to CEO. Without disclosing the fact that meeting is already fixed for 26.04.2014, the permission from ARCS was obtained for holding the emergency meeting on 28.04.2014, however, holding of the meeting was stayed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Rohtak. In spite of the stay, the meeting was held by tampering with the proceeding book. Without disclosing the fact that meeting is already fixed for 26.04.2014, the permission from ARCS was obtained for holding the emergency meeting on 28.04.2014, however, holding of the meeting was stayed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Rohtak. In spite of the stay, the meeting was held by tampering with the proceeding book. The proceeding book apparently appears to have been tampered with to show that they were not aware of the stay at the time of holding of the meeting. The fact remains that there was no occasion for emergency meeting for election, as fifteen days notice is provided for election in the 1984 Act and 1989 Rules. During the inspection conducted by the Chief Executive Officer, a note was written that agenda had not been sent along with notice and no clear notice of required time was given to her under Rule 110 of the 1989 Rules. Any proceeding against the rules is not sustainable and the process had commenced much earlier. The material facts have been concealed from the Principal Secretary in respect of moving of application for vacation of stay order before DRCS. Thereafter, the application was moved for withdrawal of the said application but was not permitted by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies. In spite of pendency of application for vacation of stay before Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, the Principal Secretary heard the matter and vacated the stay order. This clearly indicates that everything was done in an unfair manner and sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the parties. The election is a democratic process but undue haste has been done. 16. In view of above, the impugned order cannot be sustained for the reason that in spite of stay, the emergency meeting was got fixed by concealing material fact with regard to meeting already fixed for 26.04.2014 and the proceeding book was tampered with and time was subsequently added to show that meeting was already held when notice of stay was received. This all has been done, when the zonal list had already been finalized and election process had commenced. The society could have proceeded in accordance with the provisions of law. The relief was granted by the Principal Secretary beyond the prayer of respondent no.6 for holding the meeting. The powers of the revisional authorities are very limited. The order can only be set aside, if it is perverse or illegal. 17. The society could have proceeded in accordance with the provisions of law. The relief was granted by the Principal Secretary beyond the prayer of respondent no.6 for holding the meeting. The powers of the revisional authorities are very limited. The order can only be set aside, if it is perverse or illegal. 17. For the reasons stated above, instant writ petition is allowed, impugned order dated 17.06.2014 (Annexure P-17) is set aside and the case is remitted to respondent no.2 with a direction to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before respondent no.2 on 11.08.2014. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————