NAWAB SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR COOP SOCIETIES HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of The Holi Co- operative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Holi, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala, (hereinafter called the 'Society'). This Co-operative Bank Society, which is a primary society is a member of the Ambala Co-operative Ltd., Ambala City (hereinafter called 'the bank'). The voters for the election to the managing committee of the Bank consists of share holders and authorised representatives of member of Co-operative Societies. So far as the representative of a member Co-operative Society is concerned his name and address is required to be sent by the society with a certified copy of the resolution duly attested by an officer, not below the rank of Inspector Co- operative Societies incharge of such Co-operative Society. The society sent the name of the petitioner alongwith resolution, which was attested by the Executive Officer of the Bank who was an officer of the rank of Inspector Co- operative Society. His name was brought on the tentative list of zones and voters by the Manager of the Bank but was rejected by the Zonal Committee on an objection having been raised by Shri Mewa Singh member of the society that the resolution was not attested by the Inspector Co-operative Societies, incharge of the Society. The validity of the decision of the Zonal Committee, communicated through Annexure P-2, has been challenged through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The Registrar and the Chairman of the Zonal Committee, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not put in appearance in spite of service. Ex-parte proceedings, consequently, have been taken against them.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, three preliminary objections have been taken but objections No. 1 and 3 were only pressed at the time of arguments. The first preliminary objection raised is that the petitioner has alternate remedy under section 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') of raising a dispute and its determination by the Registrar or his nominee. In support of his contention he has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Daya Nand Chaudhry v. Sh H.L. Sodhi, Additional Registrar (Credit) Co- operative Societies, Haryana,1981 PunLJ 86. In the decision relied upon, the nomination papers of one of the candidates had been rejected and the only remaining candidate was declared elected. So it was held that the petitioner was entitled to challenge the election by way of raising a dispute under the said section 55 of the Act. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the non-inclusion of his name in the voters' list. It is highly doubtful if this grievance of the petitioner can be subject matter of the election dispute. Even if it may be so, the remedy of raising an election dispute cannot be said to be an alternate efficacious remedy as thereby he may not be able to successfully challenge the election of the elected candidate on the ground that his name was wrongfully no included in the voters' list. We, therefore, find no merit in this preliminary objection.