SARDAR MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fresh elections to the Committee of the Central Co- operative Bank, Gurgaon, (hereinafter called 'the Bank') were directed to be held on July 25, 1975, by the Registrar, respondent No. 2 under the Rules of Election to the Committee of Cooperative Societies (hereinafter called 'the Election Rule') embodied in Appendix 'C' (as in Haryana) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963. Respondent No. 3, who was Retuning Officer, issued the election programme under rule 5 of the Election Rules and accordingly exhibition of the voters list of various zones was to be made on May 23, 1975; objections to the constitution of the zones and the voters lists were to be heard on May 29, 1975; certified copies of the resolution by the Member Cooperative Societies as required by sub-rule (6) of rule 4 of the Election Rules was to be filed on June 12, 1975; the list of representative of member- societies, who are to act as voters was to be exhibited on June 24, 1975 ; the nomination papers were to be filed on June 30, 1975; scrutiny of the nomination papers was to be held on July 1, 1975; withdrawal of any of the nomination papers was to take place on July 3, 1975 symbols were to be allocated on July 4, 1975 ; and the election was to take place on July 25, 1975. In compliance with this election programme published by respondent No. 3, the list of various zones of voters was exhibited on May 23, 1975 ; objections were heard on May 29, 1975 ; notified copies of the resolutions by the member-societies were filed on June 12, 1975 ; and the list of representatives of member-societies for acting as voters was exhibited on June 24, 1975. Thus the process of election up to this stage was completed when all of a sudden respondent No. 2 (the Registrar) issued a stay order by telegram (annexure P. 2) on June 25, 1975, suspending further operation of the election programme in the following terms :-

(2.) The only point urged by Mr. Balwant Singh Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Registrar has no authority in law to postpone indefinitely the process of election midway when all the formalities, necessary for the election, had been validly completed. The return has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 by the Joint Registrar. The facts regarding the election programme and postponement of the election as alleged in the petition are admitted. The revelant para No. 4 is reproduced below :-

(3.) The only ground for postponing indefinitely the election, as mentioned in para 4 of the return,is that two complaints were received by respondent No. 2 to the effect that the list of voters did not contain the names of various societies which were members of the Bank and that the zones were not properly constituted. But this can hardly be a ground for postponing the election. The whole procedure for constitution of zones and the preparation of the zonal lists of voters is laid down in rule 4 of the Election Rules. Rule 3 lays down that the election shall be held on a date fixed by the Registrar; the election shall be conducted by the Returning Officer and the date fixed for election shall be communicated to the Returning Officer and the Manager of the Cooperative Society concerned at least ninety days before the expiration of the tenure of the committee. Rule 4 of the Election Rules is reproduced below in extenso :-