NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 3618 and 3324 of 1979. In both these petitions, order dated June 6, 1979, of the Assistant Registrar, setting aside the election of the Committee Members is being impugned. In Civil Writ Petition 3618 of 1979, order dated August 8, 1979, of the Deputy Secretary, Punjab Government, is sought to be impugned.

(2.) The facts are no more in dispute. The two Societies, namely, the Gadli Cooperative Agricultural Services Society and Khalera Cooperative Agricultural Services Society were amalgamated in 1978. It is not disputed that after the amalgamation, election of the Committee Members took place in December, 1978. This election has been set aside by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, in June, 1979, without there being a reference before him for arbitration. It has been contended by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that the impugned orders have been passed under the purported powers of Section 27 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), we are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel as it is clear that the Assistant Registrar has set aside the election which he could not without there being proper proceedings before him for arbitration under the provisions of the Act. It has been next contended that the tenure of the committee, which came into existence after amalgamation of the Societies, was one year and, therefore, the election held in December, 1978, could not be held. This contention is also without any merit. The order issued under provisions of Section 13(8) of the Act, provides the maximum limit of one year tenure for the committee of the amalgamated Cooperative Society. It is not disputed that the election of the Society was held in pursuance of the election programme which was approved by the Assistant Registrar.

(3.) In this view of the matter, this contention is also without any merit. Since the impugned orders have been passed without jurisdiction, we quash the same. However, if an aggrieved person has any remedy under law, it will be open to him to initiate the proceedings in accordance with law, if so permitted.