AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition seeking to challenge the election schedule notified by respondent No. 3 for holding the election of Managing Committee of the Shahabad Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd., Shahabad, District Kurukshetra on 22.11.2009. There is no averment in the writ petition showing the status of the petitioners. Even though learned counsel for the petitioners claims that the petitioners are the members of the Society, but in absence of there being any specific averment in this regard, the locus of the petitioners cannot be ascertained. As a matter of fact, this petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.

(2.) BE that as it may. The challenge of the election schedule is merely on the ground that the Administrator who has notified the election schedule is not competent to notify the election. In sum and substance, the case of the petitioners is that the term of the elected Managing Committee of the Society expired on 11.10.2007 as averred in paragraph ii) of the writ petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Annexure P-2 wherein the date of expiry of the term of the earlier Managing Committee is mentioned as 9.10.2009. Since no fresh election could be held, the Administrator in terms of Section 33 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was appointed to manage the affairs of the Society and the Sugar Mills controlled by the Cooperative Societies. It is alleged that the term of the Administrator has expired and thereafter an Administrator is not competent to hold the election of the Society. The other grouse of the petitioners is that the zones have been notified with unequal number of votes. There is unequal distribution of votes in different zones carved out by the Administrator and the same is thus violative of the provisions of the Act. The petitioners have also challenged the votor-list prepared by the Administrator. It is stated hat the voter list is without complete addresses of the members of the Society and it would be difficult to recognize the members of the Society at the time of election. A part from above, it is stated that many members of the Society have not been included in the votor-list. Only one example of one Jagat Singh has been who is said to be a member of the Society, but not included in the votor-list.