SURENDERJIT SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR CO OP SOCIETIES HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Ambala Co-operative Bank Limited. Ambala, (for short the Bank) is a Central Co-operative Society deemed to be registered under the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, with different Co-operative Societies as its members. Elections to the governing body of the Bank (hereinafter referred to as the committee) were held in March, 1997. Respondent 4 as a representative of Chaur Mastpur Co-operative Credit and Service Society Ltd, which is a member of the bank contested the election. When he filed his nomination papers, an objection was raised before the Returning Officer by one Joginder Singh a representative of another member of the Bank that he (respondent 4) was not eligible to contest the election because his son was an employee of the Bank. The objection was over-ruled and the nomination paper of respondent 4 accepted. The Returning Officer was of the view that the relationship of respondent 4 with an employee of the Bank was a post election disqualification in view of eye-law 33(ix) of the bye-laws of the Bank (hereinafter called the bye law) and, therefore, he was not ineligible from contesting the election. Elections were held on 14.3.1997 and respondent 4 . was elected a Director of the Bank.After the elections were over, one Surjit Singh a representative of another member society of the Bank filed an application before respondents 1 and 2 praying that respondent 4 being ineligible under the aforesaid bye law should be removed from the membership of the Committee. The petitioner who is a member of the Rasulpur Co-operative Credit and Service Society Ltd. Rasulpur, District Ambala which in turn is a member of the Bank also filed an application under Rule 28 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) seeking removal of respondent 4. Since no action was taken by respondents 1 and 2 for the removal of respondent 4, the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus directing respondents 1 and 3 to remove respondent 4 from the membership of the Committee.

(2.) In response to the notice the respondents have filed their written statements. It is not disputed that the son of respondent 4 is an employee of the Bank. The case set up by the respondents is that his son was already in the employment of the Bank when he filed his nomination papers and. therefore, bye-law 33(ix) of the bye-laws was not attracted and the said respondent was eligible to contest the elections. It is also urged on behalf of the, respondents that the aforesaid bye-law would have come into operation Only if the son of respondent 4 had become an employee of the Bank after his election. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner thai: since respondent 4 is related to an employee of the Bank, he was not eligible to contest the election and, in any case, after the election is over he is not eligible to continue as a member of the Committee.

(3.) In order to resolve the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Rules 27 of 28 of the Rules and Clause (ix) of bye-law 33 of the bye-laws. These provisions are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference :