RAJINDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the bonafide members of respondent no.5, a Cooperative Bank duly registered with respondent no.3 i.e., Registrar, Cooperative Societies under the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). The said Bank is governed by the aforesaid Act and the Rules framed thereunder i.e., Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Rules). Respondent no.5 is registered with respondent no.3 in the name and style of On 8th July, 2008, the Returning Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Limited. Officer i.e., respondent no.4 appointed by Government of NCT of Delhi issued an agenda notice and election programme dated 19th August, 2008 for holding the election of Board of Directors of respondent no.5/Bank. The agenda notice contained a clause that "in case of the candidates getting less than 1/6th of the total votes polled, the security deposit shall be forfeited and such candidates shall be disqualified for contesting the election in the Bank for the period of two terms of the Board". It is contended that the said clause has been illegally added in Schedule II Clause 4 vide notification dated 19th October, 2007. The relevant portion of the Rules reads as under:-

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.3 i.e., Registrar Cooperative Societies it is stated that Clause 4 of Schedule II of the Rules provides that if a candidate fails to secure 1/6th of the total votes polled then his security deposit shall be forfeited and such candidate shall be disqualified to contest the election in that society for two terms. It is contended that the said clause is not unconstitutional and rather has an object and purpose. The purpose is to prevent persons from contesting the election unnecessarily and to prevent wasteful expenditure where a candidate is not having sufficient support and is unlikely to succeed. It is contended that such a clause disqualifying a member from contesting the election is a reasonable one.

(3.) The stand of respondent no.5/bank is that the last election of the Board of Directors of the respondent no.5/Bank was held on 16th October, 2005. In the agenda notice dated 19th August, 2005 for the election issued by the then Returning Officer, it was clearly mentioned that in case any candidate gets less than 1/6th of the total votes polled, security deposit of such a candidate shall be forfeited and he shall be disqualified for contesting the election of the bank for a period of three years. It is contended that petitioners contested the elections held on 16th October, 2005 and could not secure 1/6th of the total votes polled. It is contended that nomination papers of the petitioners have been rejected as they did not complete the penalty period. It is stated that newly elected board has already taken over. It is further stated that Clause 4 of Schedule II of the Rules is in the interest of Cooperative Banks, its members and the cooperative movement at large and the same is neither ultra vires the Act nor is it arbitrary as is alleged.