LAWS(P&H)-1973-10-17

NARINDER SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB, ETC.

Decided On October 03, 1973
NARINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
The State Of Punjab, Etc. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant. The writ petition had arisen in the following circumstances:

(2.) LATER , one Bir Singh, Respondent No. 8, filed an undated application before Shri Bishan Singh, Deputy Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Amritsar, Respondent No. 3, alleging that the nomination papers of the Appellant had been wrongly accepted, because he was a defaulter of the Co -operative Bank. Respondent No. 3 entertained this application and thinking that a dispute had arisen about the election in accordance with Section 55 of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), assumed jurisdiction to arbitrate in the matter under Section 56 of the Act and stayed election from Zone No. 2 during the pendency of the reference. Against this order of stay and entertainment of the application as a reference of a dispute relating to the election, Narinder Singh filed Civil Writ No. 315 of 1973 urging that accordance to the relevant provisions of Section 55 of the Act and Rule 12(2) of Part I of Appendix 'C' to the Punjab Co -operative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), an election dispute could be raised or referred to the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, only after the result of the election has been declared. This contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge and hence this appeal.

(3.) THE question debated before the learned Single Judge as well as before us was whether Clause (c) of Section 55(2) of the Act read with election Rules 6 and 12(2) provided for any reference of a dispute relating to the election at any time prior to the declaration of the result or whether, according to these provisions, a dispute can be referred only after the result of the election has been declared. As already indicated, the learned Single Judge in this case has taken the view that a dispute relating to election can be raised at any time and that the mere fact that Sub -rule (2) of election Rule 12 provides for 90 days after the declaration of the result, is no indication that an election cannot be challenged at an initial stage after the nomination papers have been accepted.