Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1571 (PNJ)

Vardeep Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-11-17

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT : Paramjeet Singh, J. The three petitioners claiming to be members of respondent No. 4-The Sidhwan Bet Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. Sidhwan Bet, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned resolution/election programme dated 24.09.2014 (Annexure P-1) approved by respondent No. 5-Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon being illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and against the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (in short 'the 1961 Act'), Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (in short 'the 1963 Rules'), bye-laws of the Society as well as against the guidelines for election issued by respondent No. 2-Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab and for quashing the electoral rolls (Annexures P-9 to P-11) as eligible voters have been denied the right to vote and some ineligible members have been shown to be eligible voters in the electoral roll. 2. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that respondent No. 4 known as the Sidhwan Bet Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. Sidhwan Bet, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana (hereinafter to be referred as 'Society') is a cooperative society registered under the provisions of 'the 1961 Act'. The area of operation of the Society consists of four villages namely (i) Sidhwan Bet (ii) Sadarpura (iii) Salempura and (iv) Safipura. There are 704 members of village Sidhwan Bet, 297 of Sadarpura, 339 of Salempura and 105 of Safipura. The Society is a primary society and its membership consists exclusively of individual members. As per Chapter IV of the 1961 Act', management of the Society vests in its elected managing committee. Earlier the election of Managing Committee was held on 28.10.2009 and as such tenure of five years of the Committee expired on 27.10.2014. As a result of it, election of new Managing Committee is required to be held. As per Section 26(1)(c) of 'the 1961 Act', each managing committee before expiry of 90 days of its term, shall make arrangement for the constitution of a new managing committee as per the provisions of 'the 1961 Act', 'the 1963 Rules' and bye-laws made thereunder. As a result of it, election of new Managing Committee is required to be held. As per Section 26(1)(c) of 'the 1961 Act', each managing committee before expiry of 90 days of its term, shall make arrangement for the constitution of a new managing committee as per the provisions of 'the 1961 Act', 'the 1963 Rules' and bye-laws made thereunder. Appendix-C, Part-II of 'the 1963 Rules' provides for the election in the primary cooperative societies if held in a special general body meeting and guidelines have also been issued by respondent No. 2-Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab, in this regard. Rules 34 to 40 of 'the 1963 Rules' are relevant for election to the committee of the primary cooperative societies which include preparation and finalisation of election programme, calling of general meeting etc. As per Bye-law 32 of the Registered Bye-laws of the Cooperative Society, managing committee of the society shall be constituted where membership of the society is not less than 50. 3. The petitioners have challenged the election programme on the ground that the election programme approved by respondent No. 5 is illegal, arbitrary and is not in accordance with 'the 1961 Act', 'the 1963 Rules' and Bye-laws of the cooperative society. As per condition 13 of election programme, notice of election is required to be given to the members by beat of drum in the area of operation of the Society and by affixing notices at common places of the concerned villages, but the method for making programme has not been followed. It is also one of the grounds that as per condition No. 9 of the election programme, a member who has not transacted business with the Society during the last 12 months for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- in the shape of loan or deposit at least for three months for two times will not be eligible for casting the votes. The petitioners do not fall in that category, but petitioners No. 2 and 3 have been shown in the list of ineligible candidates. Some of the persons have been wrongly shown as eligible voters and at least 170 members have been declared defaulters whereas they are entitled to cast vote in election. Other ground raised is with regard to illegality in preparing the voter list. On these grounds, instant petition has been filed. 4. Upon notice, respondents put in appearance. Some of the persons have been wrongly shown as eligible voters and at least 170 members have been declared defaulters whereas they are entitled to cast vote in election. Other ground raised is with regard to illegality in preparing the voter list. On these grounds, instant petition has been filed. 4. Upon notice, respondents put in appearance. Respondent No. 4 filed separate written statement with the averments that resolution was passed on 25.10.2014 which has been duly approved by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana. Even the election programme (Annexure P-1) has been approved by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Jagraon. Instant writ petition involves disputed questions of fact with regard to number of defaulters, mode of publication of programme, election etc. which cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction. The complete mechanism under Chapter VIII of 'the 1961 Act' for redressal of grievance of the petitioners after completion of election has been provided. The petitioners can challenge the election of elected members under the provisions of 1961 Act'. The case of respondents is that proper munadi was conducted as per the instructions and out of more than thousand members, only three members are challenging the election process. No zone was required to be framed. It is also pleaded case of petitioners that at least one member should be elected from village whose membership is not less than 50 is accepted, even then it would amount to framing of zones. The elections are strictly held in the general body meeting as per Bye-law 32 of the Registered Bye-laws of the Cooperative Society. Complete voter list was displayed as per the provisions of law and objections could have been filed within a reasonable time. 5. Separate written statement has been filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 and respondent No. 5 has also filed specific reply by way of affidavit. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. At the outset, question has been raised by learned counsel for respondent No. 4 with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. At the outset, question has been raised by learned counsel for respondent No. 4 with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 4 that the petitioners have alternative remedy under Chapter VIII of the 1961 Act' with regard to the management or business of the Society and the disputed question of fact can be adjudicated in the alternative fora after leading evidence by the respective parties. 8. Before I go into the merits of other contentions, I deem it appropriate to deal with the question firstly whether writ petition is maintainable challenging the validity of resolution and election programme as well as electoral roll. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2001 SCC 3982 held that writ petition to quash election schedule on ground of illegality in preparation of electoral roll is not maintainable since such challenge can be raised in election petition. 9. In the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the election programme as well as electoral roll alleged to be illegally prepared, therefore, in view of law laid down in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami's case (supra), instant writ petition is not maintainable. However, the petitioners can be relegated to pursue their alternative remedy available to them under Chapter VIII of 'the 1961 Act'. In view of this, there is no need to go into the merit of other contentions as that would prejudice the rights of the parties. 10. Since the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy, the present petition is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioners to avail alternative remedy available to them.