SUSHILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (7th May, 1997) -This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 5.2.1997 passed by the Zonal Committee constituted by the Mohindergarh Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., respondent No, 6 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") whereby the petitioner's name was deleted from the voters' list by rejecting her nomination.

(2.) The petitioner, Smt. Sushila Devi, was a primary member of the Kurahawala Co-operative Credit and Service Society, village Kurahawala, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Society"). The Society was, in turn, a member of the Bank and, as such, it was entitled to send its representative to take part in the election to the Bank's Board of Directors/Managing Committee. As the present term of the Board of Directors/Managing Committee of the Bank was expiring a Zonal Committee was constituted by the Bank. The petitioner has alleged that Shri Narender Singh Yadav (respondent No. 4) and Shri Prem Chand Gupta, Advocate (respondent No. 5) were nominated as members of the Zonal Committee besides the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Society alongwith 12 other Societies was placed in Zone No. 1. The petitioner was, by a resolution dated 27.12.1996, appointed by the Managing Committee of the Society as its representative to participate in election to the Board of Directors of the Bank, The other 12 Societies also authorized their representatives to take part in the election. Thus, there was 13 voters in the list of voters in Zone No. 1. The petitioner has alleged that Shri Ram Bilas Sharma, Education Minister Haryana (respondent No. 7) wanted his brother Rajinder Singh to be elected unopposed as the Director of the Bank and was also unhappy with the petitioner's husband for political reasons. In the meeting of the Zonal Committee, an objection was raised by one Shri Kanwar Singh that the petitioner's name should be included in Zone No. 2 and not Zone No. 1. However, instead of considering that objection, the Zonal Committee struck off petitioner's name from the list of voters on the ground that her name was not approved by the two-third members of the Society.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that resolution appointing her as the representative of the Society had been passed by six out of nine members of the Managing Committee of the Society and was thus a valid resolution by two-third of the members present and voting. Copy of the resolution (Annexure P-1) has been placed on record to show that 10 members had attended the meeting of the Managing Committee out of whom, Shri Ajit Singh, Executive Officer of the Bank had attended the meeting as a nominee of the Bank and, therefore, had no power to vote. Therefore, out of nine members of the Managing Committee of the Society, six members had approved the nomination of the petitioner and was thus a valid nomination. It is further contended by- the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, even if it was assumed that the resolution had not been passed by two third members, it was necessary to afford an opportunity to the Society to pass a fresh resolution as required under the Election Rule. Since the petitioner was deprived of her right to participate in the election, the present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the decision taken by the Zonal Committee of the Bank.