HARI KISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of C.Ws, Nos. 2935, 2928 and 2898 of 1972.

(2.) For facility of reference the facts of C.W. No. 2935 of 1972 are briefly given below. The election of the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society known as the Palwal Primary Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank, Palwal, (hereinafter called the Society), were ordered to be held in accordance with the election programme issued by respondent No. 4. According to the election programme issued by him, nomination papers were to be filed on May 29, 1972. They were to be scrutinized on May 30, 1972. The polling, if any, was to be held on July 9, 1972. It is alleged that for the purpose of this election the area of operation of the Society was distributed into six zones. The petitioners were returned unopposed from zones 5, 2, 4, 1 and 6 respectively. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were the only contesting candidates left in the field from zone No. 3. In respect of this zone, polling was to be held on July 9, 1972. It, is admitted in the return filed on behalf of the respondent-State of Haryana that intimation regarding the unopposed election of the petitioners had been conveyed to the Office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. On June 7, 1972, however, respondent No. 3 issued an order under which elections of the committees of some of the Primary Co-operative Societies, including the Palwal Primary Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank were postponed on the ground that elections of Panchayat Samitis etc. were to be held on July 10, 1972. On July 11, 1972, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, respondent No. 3 issued another order in which it has been mentioned that the Legal Remembrancer of the Government of Haryana had given an opinion that the elections of the committees of the Banks postponed for October 15, 1972, could be taken up from the very beginning. He, therefore, requested the Assistant Registrar to hold elections of the Managing Committee of the Palwal Primary Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank, Palwal, afresh. Pursuant to this order, the Assistant Registrar issued an election programme inviting fresh nomination papers from all the six zones. It is this election which is being challenged in the instant petition.

(3.) Shri B.S. Khoji, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to rules 5 and 11 of the Rules of Election to the Committees of Co-operative Societies, which were promulgated on May 5, 1972, in the State of Haryana. Rule 5 says that there should be separate election programme for each zone and Rule 11 lays down that the Returning Officer shall declare the validly nominated candidate elected if there happens to be only one validly nominated candidate in that zone. These rules do not contain any new rule of procedure. According to the well-established practice, election programme of each constituency is separately given and in case of a constituency in which only one candidate is duly proposed and seconded that candidate has to be declared as elected by the Returning Officer there and then. In this view of the matter, the petitioners stood elected on May 31, 1972, when because of the withdrawal made by some other contestants, they were left as the single candidates in their respective zones. It is not disputed that the result of their election was duly communicated to the office of respondent No. 3. A person who is elected as a member of the Managing Committee becomes invested with a statutory right to continue as a member for a period of three years. Neither the Government nor the Registrar can set at naught the right of such an elected member save in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Something which cannot be done directly cannot be allowed to be achieved by an indirect and circuitous method. If the elections of the Primary Land Mortgage Bank, Palwal, in respect of Zone No. 3 could not be held on July 9, 1972, then the date of polling could have been advanced suitably by the Assistant Registrar so that this election could be held after the election of the Panchayat Samitis in the State had been conducted, it was not open to respondent No. 4 to invite fresh nomination papers in respect of Zones 5, 2, 4, 1 and 6. Respondent No. 3 has mentioned in his letter dated July 11, 1972, that the Legal Remembrancer of the State Government had clarified that the election from all the zones could he held afresh. I am astonished on this type of advice which is said to have been tendered by the Law Department.