KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the Ropar District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Milk Plant, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as the "Union"), the Barwa Cooperative Milk Producers Society Ltd., Barwa, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar (hereinafter referred to as the " Barwa Society") and the Bhatton Cooperative Milk Producers Society Ltd., Bhatton (hereinafter referred to as the "Bhatton Society") are the societies registered under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Barwa Society and the Bhatton Society are the members of the Union and falls in zone No. 11 of the Union. The elections to the Milk Union were held in May 2010 in which the petitioner, being committee member of the Barwa Society, participated and likewise respondent No. 4 also participated being the representative of Bhatton Society. Petitioner and respondent No. 4 both secured 29 votes and there was a tie between them, however, the result of the election was declared by way of toss of a coin in which the petitioner was declared elected. Respondent No. 4 filed the election petition challenging the manner in which the election of the petitioner was held, who was declared elected by way of toss instead of draw of lots. The said election petition was dismissed on 31.08.2010 by respondent No. 3 and instead of availing the remedy of appeal, CWP No. 17358 of 2010 was filed which was allowed on 01.12.2010 and the matter was remanded back to the respondent No. 3 to decide the matter afresh. After the remand, respondent No. 3 allowed the election petition on 27.02.2012 on the ground that the result of the election was declared in violation of Rule 11(1) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). The petitioner challenged the order of respondent No. 3 by way of appeal under Section 68 of the Act before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, which was allowed on 31.05.2012. Respondent No. 4 preferred a revision before respondent No. 1 against the order dated 31.05.2012 which has been allowed vide order dated 22.10.2012 in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Karnail Kaur v. Smt. Balbir Kaur., 2009 5 RCR(Civ) 638. The only argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the election, in case of a tie between the two candidates, could also be held by way of spinning of coin/toss of a coin instead of draw' of lots as in both the cases, element of chance is involved. He has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Bharpai v. Nianbhari and another, 1975 PunLJ 342 in support of his contention.

(2.) On the other hand counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no provision of toss of coin in the Rules in case of a tie, rather the Legislature has specifically used the procedure of draw of lots to be undertaken by the Returning Officer or the Presiding Officer as the case may be. He has referred to Rule 11(1) of the Rules and has also relied upon a decision of this Court in Smt. Karnail Kaur's case .

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.