SOTAL PATTI HARBANS SINGH LAMBARDAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LTD Vs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed on behalf of the Sotal Patti Harbans Singh Lambardar Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. Sotal (hereinafter called the Society). It is alleged that the election of the Managing Committee of the Society was held on March 25, 1971, when all the members of the Committee were elected unanimously. This election was conducted under the supervision of the inspector of Co-operative Societies who, acting as the Returning Officer, declared the result of the election on that very day. No complaint whatsoever was lodged with the Registrar against the procedure adopted for the conduct of the election.

(2.) Ranjit Singh respondent No. 5 made a complaint to respondent No. 1 who exercised the powers of the Registrar under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). Respondent No. 1 marked this complaint for enquiry to respondent No. 3. As a result of this enquiry, respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion that the Committee had not been elected in accordance with the Rules inasmuch as no sanction for the election was taken from the Department, nor was the election programme promulgated by beat of drums. Furthermore, Nar Singh, Chhajju Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Bhagwan Dass alleged to have been elected as members of the Committee on March 25, 1971, were defaulters.

(3.) On receipt of this report, respondent No. 1 issued a show-cause notice to the members of the Committee said to have been elected on March 25, 1971, calling upon them to explain the allegations contained therein. After considering the explanation tendered by the members of the Committee, respondent No. 1 held that the Committee had not been properly constituted and in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 26(ID) of the Act ordered the removal of the Committee and appointed respondent No. 4 as its Administrator. This order dated July 25, 1973, Annexure 'A', passed by respondent No. 1, is being challenged in this petition. It is alleged that the election of the Committee had been held in accordance with Rules and respondent No. 1 exercising the powers of Registrar could not remove such a Committee on the application made by a member of the Society after the period of limitation for challenging the election had expired.