ITWARI Vs. REGISTRAR CO OP SOC LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy sought to be raised in this group of petitions is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court which is directly on the point [Shiv Mangal Singh v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, V. P., 1982 UPLBEC 46 : 1981 AH LI 1297]. The question involved is whether while allowing the extension of the time schedule fixed for the election of the Committee of Management of a notified Society, it is competent to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies to extend the dates of even those processes of election which have already been completed. Analysing the entire scheme of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder governing the election of such notified Societies in considerable depth the Division Bench answered this question in the affirmative. As the point involved in these petitions is identical, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) We will first have a brief look at the scheme of the election. The general body for the election of the Committee of Management of a notified Society consists of delegates who are themselves elected by the primary members of the Society in accordance with the rules set out in Part IV of the Rules framed under the Act. After the election of the delegates who constitute the electorate, the Committee of Management is elected in accordance with the Rules appearing in Part IV.

(3.) Under Rule 439 (i) the superintendence, direction and control for organising these elections vests in the Registrar and under sub-rule (2) of Rule 439, the Registrar fixes the date or dates for the election in such Co-operative Societies and requires the District Magistrate concerned to appoint an Election Officer for conducting these elections. The latter then notifies the time schedule for the election. Under the second proviso to Rule 440 the Registrar has power to allow extension of the time schedule in special circumstances to be recorded in writing.