AJMER SINGH Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJMER Singh, petitioner, and respondents No. 4 to 10 are the members of the Ghilaur Co-operative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Ghilaur, District Karnal (hereinafter called 'the Society'), a Society registered under the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act. Election to the Managing Committee of the Society was held on June 29, 1995. The petitioner was one of the contestants. However, he was not successful in the election whereas respondents No. 4 to 10 were declared elected. An election petition was filed by the petitioner and another person on July 31, 1995, under Section 102 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, against the elected members (Respondents No. 4 to 10), which was referred for decision to Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karnal. It was alleged that there had been many irregularities in holding the election.

(2.) THE Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karnal, issued notice to the respondents in the election petition for August 16, 1995. On August 16, 1995, when the respondents appeared, counsel for respondents No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 contended that the election petition was not filed within the period of limitation and, therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed. No written statement had been filed on behalf of any of the respondents. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, on the same day held that the election petition was time-barred. In spite of that, the election petitioners were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their plea regarding the alleged irregularities committed at the time of the election. Since the election petitioners did not produce any evidence, the election petition was dismissed. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karnal, dated August 16, 1995, dismissing the election petition is reproduced as under :

(3.) WE had asked the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, as to how the petition was time-barred and how was it held to be time-barred without there being any written-statement, or issues framed or affording opportunity of leading evidence to the parties. We further asked him that if at all the election petition was time-barred, how was it that on the first date, the petitioner was asked to lead evidence in support of the allegations in the petition and that too without framing any issues and asking the respondents to file written-statement.