HARINDER SINGH Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Elections to the managing committee of the Harbanspura Cooperative Milk Producers Society Ltd., Harbanspura, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana (for short, the society) were held on 13.2.1993 in which nine members were elected, five of whom are the petitioners before us in this petition and the other four are respondents 5 to 9. Chamkaur Singh son of Shri Gurdev Singh, respondent 9, who also fought the election was defeated. He raised an election dispute Under Sec. 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act and the matter was referred to the arbitration of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Samrala, District Ludhiana. It was alleged that some persons who were illegally enrolled as members of the society were allowed to cast there votes and that the society had not included the names of some eligible persons in the voters' list who were, thus, left out and were unable to cast their votes. The Assistant Registrar accepted the contentions of the election petitioner and by his order dated 19.4.1993 he set aside the election of the managing committee.

(2.) Petitioners who felt aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Registrar filed an appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana who while entertaining the appeal on 16.6.1993 issued notice to the respondents therein for 12.7.1993 and the operation of the impugned order dated 19.4.1993 was stayed. This order is Annexure P3 with the writ petition. It appears that Chamkaur Singh (respondent 9) and respondents 5 to 8 moved an application before the Deputy Registrar on 1.7.1993 with a prayer that the ex parte stay order granted on 16.6.1993 be vacated. The Deputy Registrar entertained the application and without issuing any notice, to the appellants before him (petitioner herein), vacated the stay order on 1.7.1993 itself. (This order is Annexure P4 with the writ petition). Petitioners who felt aggrieved by the ex parte order dated 1.7.1993, filed revision petition before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who was exercising the powers of the State Government and impugned therein the ex parte order dated 1.7.1993. The revision petition was entertained on 13.7.1993 and the operation of the order dated 1.7.1993 was stayed. Notice in the revision petition was issued to the respondents therein for 1.9.1993. However, before the date fixed in the main petition, the Commissioner after hearing counsel for the parties, vacated on 3.8.1993 the ex parte stay order granted by him on 13.7.1993 on the ground that on that date when the ex parte stay order was granted the Administrator who had earlier been appointed on 19.4.1993 by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies was already functioning impliedly suggesting that such an order for stay was not called for. On 1.9.1993 the date on which the main case was fixed, the Commissioner dismissed the same as having become infructuous on the ground that the Administrator was functioning on 13.7.1993. It may be mentioned here that the appeal filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Registrar against the order dated 19.4.1993 was still pending and not being disposed of. Petitioners approached this Court by filing CWP 11313 of 1993 for a mandamus to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. The writ petition was disposed of on 15.9.1993 with a direction to the Deputy Registrar to decide the appeal of the petitioners expeditiously preferably within three months. It is alleged by the petitioners that in spite of a direction issued by this Court for an expeditious disposal of their appeal, the Deputy Registrar continued to adjourn the same on one pretext or the other and was not deciding it. However, when the appeal was fixed for 20.5.1995, the' petitioners (appellants before the Deputy Registrar) for the first time requested for a short adjournment on the ground that their counsel could not attend the hearing on that date as he was busy elsewhere. The Deputy Registrar did not accede to the request of the appellants before him and dismissed the appeal in default on 20.5.1994. It is this order of the Deputy Registrar as also the orders of the Commissioner dated August 3,1993 and September 1, 1993 that have been challenged by the petitioners in the present petition filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution. The order dated 1.7.1993 passed by the Deputy Registrar vacating his earlier order dated 16.6.1993 by which he had stayed the operation of the order impugned in the appeal has also been challenged.

(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the original record ! produced by the respondents and are satisfied that the impugned order deserved to be quashed. The Deputy Registrar while entertaining the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.4.1993 had stayed the operation of that order on 16.6.1993. Thereafter he entertained an application from Chamkaur Singh and respondents 5 to 8 and without issuing notice to the petitioners who had filed the appeal vacated the order ex parte. In our opinion, he could not do so. A stay order can be granted ex parte but if on an application moved by the other side for the vacation of that order, it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to issue notice to the party at whose instance the stay was granted. Not having done so, the ex parte order dated 12.7.1993 cannot, therefore, be sustained. Thereafter, in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court the appeal filed by the petitioners was to be disposed of within three months but from the record we find that the Deputy Registrar adjourned the matter on a few dates without a request from the side of the petitioners. However, when the case was fixed on 20.5.1994 a request was made on behalf of the petitioners for a short adjournment on the ground that their counsel was not available. The Deputy Registrar did not accede to the request and seems to have grabbed this opportunity to dismiss the appeal in default. Here again, we find that the Deputy Registrar was not justified in doing so in the circumstances of the present case.