MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an elected Member of Managing Committee of respondent No.4-Society. The election to the Managing Committee of the Society was held on 25.11.2007. As per the averments made in the petition, 7 Members came present and elected the petitioner as President. The Committee consisted of 9 Members in all, out of which 7 came present on the date of election. After the election of the Managing Committee, the election of the officer bearers of the Society was to be held in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society. The Presiding Officer issued notice to all the Members of the Managing Committee and scheduled the meeting for 12.3.2008. In terms of bye-law No.38, quorum to hold the election is 7 members. The petitioner claimed that 7 members came present and, thus, the quorum was complete. The name of the petitioner was proposed by Smt.Bimla Devi, one of the Members and was seconded by Sh.Tek Chand. No other name was proposed for the post of President. The petitioner accordingly was declared elected as President of respondent No.4-Society. Respondent No.5 is one of the Member of the Managing Committee but he did not come present during the meeting held on 12.3.2008. He subsequently challenged the election of the petitioner by filing election petition before respondent No.3 on 2.4.2008. Respondent No.3 issued notice to the petitioner and passed an order setting-aside the election of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the impugned order was passed without affording due and proper opportunity of hearing to him and without following due process of law. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal against this order on 24.4.2008. The appeal was also dismissed and directions were issued to Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, to hold fresh election for the post of President and Vice President of the Society within one month. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed a revision petition, which was dismissed on 1.12.2010. In fact, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.11271 of 2008, praying for grant of stay during the pendency of revision petition before respondent No.1. The election of the petitioner, which was set-aside, however, was stayed and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed as having been rendered in fructuous. After dismissal of the revision petition, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to impugn the said orders.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and reply is filed. The official respondents as well as private respondent No.5 have justified the impugned order on various grounds.

(3.) The main submission, however, is that initially 7 members may have come present but subsequently during the election, only 5 members had signed, which will indicate that quorum was not complete. This seems to have weighed with respondent authorities while setting-aside the election of the petitioner as President of the Society. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to bye-law 38, reproduced in the petition, which regulates the election to the office of President and Vice President from amongst the Managing Committee members. For the said election, quorum is 7 members. If the quorum is not complete within half an hour of the start of the meeting, then the meeting is required to be postponed for the same day in the next week and the present members in the adjourned meeting shall constitute the quorum. That being the legal position, it is to be seen whether in the meeting, which was held on 12.3.2008, quorum was complete or not.