AMAR SINGH DOSANJH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine will dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 163 and 168 of 1973. The points involved in both the petitions are the same. I am giving the facts of Civil Writ No. 163 of 1973.

(2.) The facts given in the petition are that the Phillaur Primary Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd., Goraya (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) is a Society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The elections to the Managing Committee of the Bank were to be held under the Act and the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The term of Managing Committee is three years under Section 26 of the Act and the outgoing Managing Committee arranges for the election of the new Committee in accordance with the Act and the Rules. The term of the Managing Committee was to expire in December 1972. Consequently, the Managing Committee of the Bank decided to hold fresh elections in the month of December, 1972 by a Resolution. It prepared the zones for the purposes of elections and got the same approved by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab Nawan Shehr (Respondent No. 3) who was exercising the powers of Registrar under the Act. The election programme was also framed and circulated after obtaining approval from the respondent No. 3. Six Directors were required to be elected from six zones. The petitioner filed his nomination papers from the zone No. 3. No other person filed his nomination papers from the aforesaid zone with the result that he was to be declared elected un-opposed as Director of the Bank from that zone. The respondent No. 3, after filing the nomination papers stayed the elections of the Bank on filmsy, erroneous and illegal grounds, after obtaining the complaint from one Rup Lal in relation to the elections from zone No. 2, by order dated December 27, 1972 (Annexure 'B'). The aforesaid order is illegal and void, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to pass that order before the declaration of the result of the elections. The respondents have contested the writ petition. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 3 in which he has defended his order dated December 27, 1972. He has stated that the election proceedings taken from all the zones were declared as irregular and void after hearing the cases.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the objections regarding the elections could be filed after the elections had been held, and no objections could be entertained by the respondent No. 3 before the declaration of the result of such elections. In support of his contention, he relies on clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 55 of the Act and sub-rule (2) of rule 12 and sub-rule (3) of rule 6 of Part I of Appendix "C" of the Rules. The aforesaid Section and the rules are as follows :