NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are share-holders of two Co-operative Societies, one of them is having its place of business at Kapurthala, and the other at Jullundur. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 being the member of the Kapurthala Society, possessed all the necessary qualifications for seeking election to the office of the Board of Directors of the Jullundur Industrial Co-operative Society. It has been averred in the petition that the respondents did not give due notices of the election programme to the member Societies, and fixed 27th August, 1973 as the last date for the receipt of nomination papers. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 did not get timely information and so he could not file his nomination papers. The grievance of petitioner No. 2 is that he is a share-holder of the Jullundur Society. He filed his nomination papers which were rejected by the Returning Officer on illegal grounds. In the return filed on behalf of the respondents it has been mentioned that the election programme was framed in accordance with the direction issued by the Registrar. The nomination papers of the petitioner No. 2 were rightly rejected because Society of his proposer was ordered to be wound up and was being managed by a Liquidator, Shri K.K. Uppal who claimed to represent this Society for the purpose of the election, had not been authorised by the Liquidator of the Society to act on his behalf.

(2.) On the 3rd of September, 1973, the Board of Directors were elected but it was ordered by this Court that their election would be valid subject to the result of this petition.

(3.) Shri Baldev Kapur, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that under section 18 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 ((hereinafter referred to as the Act), every member of a Co-operative Society has one vote in the affairs of the Society and under section 19(2) of the Act, the members of a Co-operative Society were entitled to appoint one of them to vote on its behalf in the affairs of another Society. According to him, even if the Registrar orders that a Society should be wound up and appoints a Liquidator to wind up its affairs, the right of the members under Sections 18 and 19(2) of the Act of having a vote in the affairs of the Society and of a right to nominate one of them to vote on its behalf for another Society, cannot be taken away. There is no merit in this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Section 58 of the Act entitles the Registrar to appoint a Liquidator who in return can carry on the business of the Society so far as if is necessary with the previous approval of the Registrar. It is the business of the primary Societies to send representatives to the Central and Apex Societies. So long as a Society is not wound up it has to participate in the affairs of the Central and Apex Societies. After the appointment of a Liquidator, these functions are performed by him and him alone. If the interpretation sought to be placed by Mr. Kapur is accepted, then the very object of Sections 58 and 59 of the Act will be frustrated. In other words, even after a Committee has been superseded and a person chosen by it is allowed to act on its behalf, then he would be in a position to frustrate the action taken by a Liquidator. This could not have been the intention of the Legislature. I am of the considered view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act make a provision for the normal state of affair and Sections 58 and 59 consist of special provisions. As soon as a society is ordered to be wound up, all affairs of the Society come to vest in its Liquidator. In this view of the matter, Shri K.K. Uppal was not competent to represent the Jullundur Society and the name of the petitioner No. 2 was not validly nominated. The Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the same.