KULWANT SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the following allegations. He and Harbhajan Singh, respondent No. 2, are members of Janta Co-operative Sugar Mills, Ltd., Bhogpur, District Jullundur, a Co-operative Society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). In the election to the Board of Directors from Zone No. 1, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 alongwith six others were validly nominated as candidates. In the general meeting of the members held on 10th October, 1960, the petitioner was declared by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, discharging the functions of Presiding Officer, to be duly elected as a member of the Board of Directors as he had obtained the largest number of votes. Respondent No. 2 moved the Registrar challenging the petitioner's election. This petition purported to have been made under Rule 8. Sub-section (1) of the "Rules of Election to the Board of Directors of the Co-operative Sugar Mills", framed by the Registrar (Respondent No. 1) on 13th July, 1960, in the purported exercise of the powers conferred on him by Rules 34 and 43 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1956, framed by the State Government under Section 60 of the Act (hereinafter called the Rules). The petitioner had in those proceedings been summoned by respondent No. 1 as per notice dated 24th November, 1960, fixing 30th November, 1960, as the date for the appearance in connection with the hearing of the election petition. In the written statement filed by the petitioner he raised a preliminary issue challenging the jurisdiction of the Registrar, respondent No. 1, to entertain and decide the said petition, but on 24th March, 1961 that preliminary objection was rejected. It is this order of rejection which is the subject of challenge in these proceedings though the ground on which this challenge is based attacks the jurisdiction of the Registrar to entertain and decide on the merits the petition challenging the petitioner's election. The objection is, strictly speaking, based on the constitutionality and vires of Rule 8 made by the Registrar under Rules 34 and 43 made by the State Government.

(2.) The facts leading up to the election of the petitioner are admitted, but the challenge to the impugned order is controverted. Rule 8 has been described to be perfectly valid and constitutional. It is obvious that the main controversy centres round the constitutionality of Rule 8 or what has been described by the petitioner's Counsel to be regulation 8 framed under Rules 34 and 43 of the Rules.

(3.) It is necessary at this stage to notice the relevant statutory provisions. Before doing so, I may mention that the present case relates to a period when the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (Punjab Act No. XIV of 1955) was in force. Under Section 60 of the Act, Government was empowered to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act for any registered society or class of such societies and sub-section (2) contains a large number of clauses illustrating various subjects on which rules could be framed. Sub-section (2) is obviously illustrative and it is expressly provided that this would be without prejudice to the generality of thee power contained in sub-section (1) Clauses (j) and (q) have been referred to on behalf of the petitioner as relevant to the controversy before us. The former relates to the appointment, suspension and removal of the members of the committee and other officers, and for procedure at meetings of the committee, and also for the powers to be exercised and the duties to be performed by the committee and other officers. This word "committee" apparently refers to clause (i) which relates to the committee of management and the general body of a registered society of which another registered society is a member. Clause (q) provides for the appointment of an arbitrator or arbitrators to decide disputes; the procedure to be followed in proceedings before the Registrar, arbitrator or arbitrators or other persons deciding dispute etc; and the levy of expenses relating to such proceedings.