PRITHAVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Prithavi Singh is a member of the Adarsh Chadiwal Milk Producers' Cooperative Society Ltd., Chadiwal; Petitioner -Gurnam Singh is a member of the Cariwal Milk Producers' Cooperative Society Ltd., Cariwal and petitioner - Hardev Singh is a member of the Mirzapur Khed Milk Producers' Cooperative Society Ltd., Mirzapur Khed. The said Societies are further members of the Sirsa District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., Sirsa (Milk Producers' Union -for short). The Milk Producers' Union is further member of the Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd., Panchkula ('HDDCF' -for short). The area of operation of the Milk Producers' Union has been divided into 9 zones to facilitate the election of the Board of Directors. The elections of the Board of Directors of HDDFC are held on the basis of rotation with 1/3rd of the members retiring every year. This is in accordance with Bye law 16.3 of the Bye -laws of the Milk Producers' Union. When the election of the Milk Producers' Union is to be held, the members of the Milk Producers' Cooperative Societies send one of its member to participate and vote in the election in terms of Section 21 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (1984 Act -for short). Elections for the office of three Directors of the Milk Producers' Union from zones No. 2, 4 and 5 were held in December, 2009. The petitioners were authorized by their respective Milk Producers' Cooperative Societies to participate and vote on its behalf in the election of the Board of Directors of the Milk Producers' Union. The petitioners participated and contested the elections. They were declared elected as Directors of the Milk Producers' Union from Zones No. 2, 4 and 5 respectively. In terms of 1984 Act, elections of all types of Cooperative Societies i.e., Primary, Central and Apex Societies are conducted in accordance with provisions of Sections 21 and 28 of the 1984 Act as also Rules 25 read with Appendix 'A' and Rule 27 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Rules, 1989 (1989 Rules -for short). The challenge of the petitioners in the present petition is to the second proviso to Sub Section (4) of Section 28 of the 1984 Act and Bye -law 16.3 of the Byelaws of the Milk Producers Union relating to tenure of the Committee. In terms of Section 28(4) of the 1984 Act, it is provided that the 'Committee' (which is defined in Section 2(e) to mean the governing body of the cooperative society by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the society is entrusted) shall, unless removed earlier by the Registrar, hold office for a period of five years from the date of election. In terms of the second proviso to Section 28(4), which is assailed in the present petition, it is envisaged that the tenure of the committee of the Primary, Central and Apex Milk Producers Cooperative Societies shall be as specified in the Bye -laws of such Societies. In terms of Bye -law 16.3 of the Bye -laws of Milk Producers Union, the elected members of the Board are to hold office for a period of three years and 1/3rd members are to retire by rotation every year. The elected members are to retire either by mutual consent or by drawing lots for the first two years and thereafter the elected members, are to retire on their turn. Subject to the provisions of the 1984 Act and the 1989 Rules, the retiring members are eligible for re -election.

(2.) IT is submitted that the second proviso of Section 28(4) of the 1984 Act and Bye -law 16.3 of the Bye -laws of the Milk Producers Union are ultra vires to the main provision of Sub -section (4) of Section 28 of the 1984 Act, which provides for a fixed tenure to the Committee for a period of five years from the date of election.

(3.) WRITTEN statement has also been filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 -the Milk Producers' Union through its Chief Executive Officer. It is submitted that no cause of action survives in favour of the petitioners because as per Bye -laws of the Milk Producers' Union, once the petitioners have completed the required tenure, then no further extension can be granted. All the petitioners, it is submitted, are ineligible from different zones i.e. Zones No. 2, 4 and 5. Therefore, no cause of action survives in their favour. It is submitted that in view of the proviso to Section 28(4) of the 1984 Act, the Bye -laws have an overriding effect. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.