MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the President of the Nanawta Co-operative Society. Dist. Saharanpur from the year 1969. Since then he and the Committee of Management of the said Society are functioning in office and no fresh elections have been held after the expiry of this period to the Committee of Management of the Society. A notice under Section 29 (4) of the U. P. Co-operative Socities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was given by the Assistant Registrar. Co-operative Societies on 31st December, 1974, to hold elections within three months from the date of communication of the order. It appears, that the Society still failed to hold the elections with the result that on 6th May, 1975, the Assistant Registrar nominated a Committee of Management under Section 29 (5) of the Act. A representation was sent against the order D.00 6th May. 1975 Annexure '1' on 13th May, 1975. A report was called for by the Deputy Registrar which was submitted by the Additional District Co-operative Officer on 14th May 1975 vide Annexure 'II'. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed on 19th May 1975. This petition was admitted on 23rd May, 1975, and a direction was issued by this Court that the representation should be decided before 7th July, 1975. On 5th July, 1975, the representation was decided by the Assistant Registrar against the petitioner. Thereafter an amendment application was moved in the writ petition which included the prayer for challenging the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 5th July, 1975.

(2.) THE main submission made by petitioner's counsel is that the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to take action under Section 29 (5) of the Act, because the society had not failed to elect the members for the Committee of Management after the expiry of their term. In the alternative it is urged that even if he had the power to nominate a new Committee of Management under Section 29 (5) of the Act, the same had been exercised, arbitrarily and unreasonably.

(3.) THE petitioner's counsel submits that the expression 'fails to elect members for the committee of management' used in Section 29 (4) of the Act should be given a very wide interpretation. It should include the entire process of election and not the Act of polling alone. For the purpose of his submission he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1952 SC 64, H.P. Punnoswami v. The Returning Officer etc. He has drawn my attention to Chapter XXIX of the Rules for election framed under the Act. It is not necessary for me to deal with all the rules in this connection. Suffice it to say that under R. 409 before election can be held to the Committee of Management a co-operative society should divide its membership into different groups on territorial or any other rational basis. It has to submit such a list for the approval of the Registrar. It is urged that such a list was submitted to the Deputy Registrar on 28th October, 1974. On 27-1-1975 the Deputy Registrar approved this list of constituencies. Objections were filed thereafter which were finally decided by the Deputy Registrar on 3rd May, 1975. It may be significantly noted here that the writ petition is absolutely silent with regard to the details of these objections. By whom these objections were filed, when they were filed, what was the nature of the objections, and what actually was the decision of the Deputy Registrar thereon have not been placed before this Court. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that before these objections were decided on 3rd May, 1975, a member of the Society filed a suit on 23rd April 1975, for an injunction restraining the election of delegates and obtained an ex parte injunction order. This order was finally vacated on 1st May, 1975. Here also it must be noticed that the petitioner has again failed to take the court in confidence by omitting to give details regarding the institution of this suit. By whom the suit was filed and what were the allegations in the suit have not been placed before this Court. It may be that the suit was filed by somebody in collusion with the petitioner. The Court has been left completely in the dark to speculate on this question. On 3rd May 1975 it is urged that the Deputy Registrar wrote to the District Magistrate for the appointment of an Election Officer as required under Rule 414 of the said Rules and 18th May 1975 was fixed as the date for the election of the Committee of Management. On the basis of the facts mentioned above the petitioner's counsel submits that the process for the holding of the election of the Committee of Management had commenced on 26th October, 1974 and was in progress and as such it cannot be said that there was a failure to elect a fresh Committee of Management as envisaged in sub-section (4) of Section 29 of the Act. I am not inclined to accept this submission of the petitioner's counsel. In the first place, as mentioned already, several details on the question involved have been suppressed from the Court, which would be very necessary for coming to the conclusion whether these proceedings, which are alleged to have commenced on 26th October, 1974 and the suit filed on 24th April, 1975, were bona fide or collusive proceedings. In the second place, since the term of the Committee of Management expired on 31st December, 1972, as held by me above, there is no explanation as to why no steps were taken for holding the election from that date upto 26th October, 1974. That is for at least two more co-operative years the Society failed to take any step for holding fresh elections and thus rendered themselves liable for action being taken under Section 29 (4) and (5) of the Act. Thirdly, the wider meaning of the term 'election' cannot possibly be given in the context in which the word is used in Section 29 of the Act. Under sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act the term of the elected members of the committee of management shall be such as may be provided under the rules. The word 'elected' here means the actual election itself. It cannot mean the entire Process of the election. Otherwise sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act would become meaningless. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act is to the effect that even though the term of the committee of management may have expired, yet it has been allowed to continue to manage till fresh elections are held by the society. Here again the expression 'fresh elections' would mean the actual holding of the election and not the entire process of election. Otherwise this proviso would also be rendered nugatory. In sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Act it has been mentioned that the 'Co- operative Society shall in the ensuing general meeting elect members of the committee of management'. This obviously refers to the actual election of the members and not to the entire process of election. In my opinion, in the context in which this expression has been used in Section 29 of the Act, the most natural and reasonable interpretation of the expression 'to elect members' would be to interpret it as the actual election of the members of the Committee of Management. The wider and liberal meaning as submitted by the petitioner's counsel cannot be given to this expression, as used in sub-section (4) of Section 29 of the Act. Since I have held above that the society has failed to elect members of the Committee of Management, the Assistant Registrar was fully competent to issue the notice dated 31st December, 1974, to the Society directing it to hold the elections within three months of the date of communication of the order. Since the Society failed to hold the election within this specified period, the Asstt. Registrar was further justified in nominating a fresh Committee of Management under Section 29 (5) of the Act.