RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed by Rajinder Singh, Director, The Jalandhar Central Co-operative Bank, Ltd., Jalandhar under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, at the admission stage the Motion Bench was pleased to pass the following order on 14th June, 1989 :-

(2.) In nutshell, the grievance of the petitioner is that even though he had been elected by securing 142 votes as against 52 votes secured by respondent No. 6 Shri Narain Dass, yet his election has been set aside on the ground that his nomination papers had been improperly accepted becaue the Society represented by him was a defaulter. This order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, with, headquarters at Chandigarh, reversing the original order of the Additional Registrar (Industrial) Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh, dated 9 June, 1988 as also the appellate order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, passed on 16th November, 1988, is untenable in law. The broad attack against the reversal order is that the finding of fact recorded by the original tribunal and upheld in appeal, could not be reversed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), as he had neither the jurisdiction to reverse the same in revision nor was there enough material with him to arrive at a contrary finding. According to the petitioner, once a firm finding had been arrived at by the learned Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, that the Society represented by Rajinder Singh petitioner was not a defaulter, it was for Narain Dass, respondent No. 6 (election petitioner) to substantiate his plea beyond reasonable doubt, and it was his duty to discharge the heavy burden.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents, defending the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), pleaded that the documentary evidence produced before the Commissioner (Appeals), tilted the balance in his favour. Further, he relied on the conclusion arrived at by the learned Commissioner, "that it was sufficient for the petitioner to point out that the Society which respondent No. 4 (Rajinder Singh, the present petitioner) represented was a defaulter and it was not the duty or responsibility of the petitioner (Narain Dass, respondent No. 6 in the writ petition) to indicate the amount of default, etc."