KEHAR SIMGH Vs. SARDAR PRAKASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There were four Co-operative Societies, namely, The New Jethuke Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., The Jethuke Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., The B. Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., and The Ghadelli Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Ghadelli. All of them were amalgamated under Section 3-B of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') as amended by Punjab Act No. 8 of 1978, by an order of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, respondent No. 5 in the month of October, 1978. The President and the Vice-President of all these four Societies thus came to constitute the Managing Committee of the New Society. A resolution Annexure P. 4 is recorded in the Minutes Book of the New Society (New Jethuke Co-operative Agricultural Service Society) hearing date 14-10-1978, which is shown to have been passed by 5 members of the Managing Committee electing Bhagwant Singh respondent No. 7 and Bhag Singh as President and Vice-President of' the said Society. Subsequently a meeting of the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the four Societies above-mentioned was held on 21-10-1978. It was attended by 7 members of the Committee and Bhag Sing petitioner No. 4 and Kehar Singh petitioner No. 1 were elected President and Vice-President respectively of the New Society. The reason for holding this meeting was that the previous meeting dated 14-10-1978 was held without notice to all the members of the Committee and as a matter of fact the signatures of some members were obtained subsequently. Pritam Singh son of Buggar Singh and Bhag Singh son of Rattan Singh, who where shown to have attended the meeting dated 14-10-1978 also attended the meeting dated 21-10-1978. The resolution passed in the meeting held on 21-10-1973 is Annexure P. 5. The office bearers thus elected on 21-10-1978 started functioning. A meeting of the Managing Committee was thereafter held on 22-10-1978 under the Chairmanship of petitioner No. 4 and it was attended by as many as 8 other members of the Committee including respondent No. 8. Another meeting of the Committee was held on 23-10-1978 under the Chairmanship of petitioner No. 4. On 25-10-1978 the new Society was visited by the Sub-Inspector of the circle who recorded his visit note in the proceedings book of the Committee on the same date. Thereafter meetings were held on 28-10-1978 and 2-11-1978 which make it clear that the office bearers elected on 21-10-1978 were functioning smoothly ever since their election without any objection from any of the members. Respondent No. 7 later on made a complaint to the then Chief Minister, Punjab, who passed the following order on 13-12-1978 :-

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. B. S. Khoji appearing for the petitioners has contended that if at all respondents No. 7 and 8 were aggrieved against the election held on 21-10-1978 whereby the petitioners No. 4 and 1 were elected President and Vice-President of the Managing Committee of the new Society, the course open to them was to raise a dispute and have the same adjudicated upon and settled under Section 56 of the Act. Such a dispute has to be raised by moving a petition before respondent No. 4. Instead of doing so, respondents No. 7 and 8 tried to secure exercise of influence by respondent No. 1 to restore them back to their position of President and Vice-President of the new Society though the meeting held on 14-10-1978 was not in accordance with law and their election was invalid. Petitioners No. 4 and 1 as shown above were functioning smoothly as President and Vice-President respectively of the new Society and had been conducting its business without any objection from any of its members. No plausible defence to this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners could be put forward by the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) If a dispute with regard to the constitution, management and business of a Co-operative Society, which undoubtedly includes election of its office bearers arises, Section 56 of the Act provides for its adjudication. This provision could not be by-passed and an order secured from the then Chief Minister to instal respondents Nos. 7 and 8 President and Vice-President respectively in place of petitioners Nos. 4 and 1, who were duly elected to those offices in the meeting held on 21-10-1978. It is, therefore, imperative to hold that the orders Annexures P. 6 and P 7 are ultra vires the provisions of the Act and cannot be sustained.