RAJINDER SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELECTIONS OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE KHARAR PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., KHARAR (FOR SHORT THE BANK) WHERE HELD ON 12.5.1999 AND THE PETITIONER WAS ELECTED A DIRECTOR FROM ZONE NO. 3. THE ELECTION PROGRAMME WAS CHALLENGED BY HARJIT SINGH RESPONDENT BY FILING A REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE PUNJAB CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). WHEN THE PETITION CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ON 19.5.1999 HE PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER :

(2.) IT IS COMMON CASE OF THE PARTIES THAT AFTER PASSING OF THIS INTERIM ORDER, THE REVISION PETITION WAS CONSIGNED TO THE RECORD ROOM AND HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN UP FOR CONSIDERATION TILL DATE. IT IS AGAINST THIS ORDER THAT THE PRESENT PETITION HAS BEEN FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

(3.) THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER IS THAT THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE REVISION PETITION MUCH LESS RESTRAIN THE PETITIONER FROM PERFORMING HIS DUTIES AS A DIRECTOR AS HE HAD BEEN DULY ELECTED FROM ZONE NO. 3 IN PURSUANCE TO THE ELECTION PROGRAMME SETTLED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR EXERCISING THE POWERS OF THE REGISTRAR. WE FIND MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION. IT IS BY NOW WELL SETTLED THAT AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE CANNOT BE RESTRAINED FROM FUNCTIONING TILL HIS ELECTION IS SET ASIDE IN AN ELECTION DISPUTE PROPERLY RAISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES GOVERNING SUCH DISPUTES. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD CAN BE MADE TO DECISION OF THIS COURT IN SATISH, MOHINDROO AND OTHERS V. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GURDASPUR AND OTHERS, 1989 PLJ 239 : 1989 (20 RCR (CIVIL) 25 ((P & H). MOREOVER, THE REVISION PETITION ITSELF WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. A PETITION CAN BE ENTERTAINED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR THE REGISTRAR AS THE CASE MAY BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING LEGALITY OR PROPRIETY OF ANY DECISION OR THE ORDER PASSED IN ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT. THERE WAS NO ORDER PASSED BY ANY AUTHORITY WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE REGISTRAR NOR WERE ANY PROCEEDINGS PENDING, THE PROPRIETY OF WHICH COULD BE EXAMINED BY HIM. WHAT WAS SOUGHT TO BE CHALLENGED IN THE REVISION PETITION WAS THE ELECTION PROGRAMME APPROVED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR EXERCISING THE POWERS OF THE REGISTRAR AND NOT THE ELECTION OF THE PETITIONER AS A DIRECTOR. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER OF THE REGISTRAR RESTRAINING THE PETITIONER FROM PERFORMING HIS DUTIES AS AN ELECTED DIRECTOR OF THE BANK IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION.