MUNSHI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the orders dated November 30, 1972 (Annexure 'A') and January 31, 1973 (Annexure 'B') of respondents 3 and 2 respectively. The facts which have given rise to the present writ petition are that election of the Managing Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') Ladowali Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Ladowali (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') was held on May 20, 1972 in which the petitioners were unanimously elected as Members of the Society. Petitioner No. 1 Munshi Ram was elected as President and petitioner No. 2 Sain Dass was elected as Cashier thereof. The petitioners after the election had been managing the affairs of the Society efficiently and honestly from May 20, 1972 till December 2, 1972. On, the aforesaid date, that is, December 2, 1972, respondent No. 4 Karnail Singh Khaira, Sub-Inspector came to the premises of the Society and took away all the records and the cash in hand under duress, undue pressure and without any lawful authority. On enquiry he disclosed that he had been appointed as the Administrator of the Society by respondent 3, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The petitioners received by post a copy of order dated November 30, 1972 on December 5, 1972, inter alia stating that the election held on May 20, 1972 had not been conducted in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 'C' (Rule 23) Part I of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). It was also mentioned therein that respondent 4 had been appointed as an Administrator under Section 26(ID) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A copy of the order of the Assistant Registrar dated November 30, 1972 is annexure 'A'. The petitioners aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Registrar dated November 30, 1972, went up in revision under Section 69 of the Act before respondent 2, Deputy Secretary, Cooperative Department, which was dismissed by him on January 31, 1973 (copy annexure 'B'). The petitioners have challenged the orders of the Assistant Registrar and the Deputy Secretary dated November 30, 1972 and January 31, 1973 respectively. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents.

(2.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the election of the petitioners to the committee could be set aside according to the provisions of the Rules and the Act. The Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to issue letter dated November 30, 1972 (Annexure 'A'). The relevant provisions which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners are sub-clause (2) of the clause 12 of Appendix 'C' and Rule 51 of the Rules. The aforesaid sub-clause and the Rule are as follows

(3.) Appendix 'C' clearly shows that appointment of a Presiding Officer/Returning Officer is mandatory for the purposes of holding an election of the Committee. This can be done by the Registrar. The election programme is also to be got approved from him. In the present case the facts stated by the respondents in the return have not been denied by the petitioners. The maximum term of office of the committee is three years as provided under sub-section (IB) of Section 26. It is stated in the affidavit of the respondents that the Administrator had been appointed as soon as respondent 3 came to know about the illegality. Under sub-clause (2) of clause 12, the matter can be referred to the Registrar in the manner provided in Rule 51 of the Rules if a dispute arises in connection with the election of any officer of the Society. Sub-clause (2) of clause 12 of Appendix 'C', does not apply to the present case, as it cannot be said that the election has taken place at all when Returning Officer was appointed and no election programme was got approved. In fact, none of the mandatory provisions of Appendix 'C' had been followed. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, while deciding the revision observed as follows :-