KHUSHI RAM BALNATAH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ petitioner has assailed the order dated 24-12-1994 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, vide Annexure P-8.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The petitioner is a Member of Bhamnoli Educated Unemployed Transport Co-operative Union and he was sent as a delegate from the above Society to participate in the elections of H. P. State Co-operative Marketing and Consumers Federation (hereinafter referred to 'HIMFPD'). The above election of HIMFED was for Rampur Zone which includes District Kinnaur. Rampur, Kumarsain. Rohroo and Chirgaon Tehsils The petitioner contested the election for the post of the Director of HIMFED and he was elected. One Jaishi Ram Sharma, respondent No. 3, challenged the election of the petitioner before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, by filing a petition under Section 72 (2) (c) of the H, P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as' the Act') read with Rule 88 of the Rules 1971 framed under the Act. The petitioner filed the reply before the .Registrar and by order dated 9-5-1944, the was allowed and election of the writ petitioner as the Director of HIMFED was set-aside with further direction to conduct fresh election by HIMFED for filling up the post of the Director, This was challenged before the Secretary. Co-operation, who passed the order dated 5-8-1994. The Secretary accepted, prima fatce, and came to the preliminary conclusion that the Bhamnoli Co-operative Society was the defaulter and, therefore, the said Co-operative Society was not eligible to continue as a Member of HIMFED under Rule 41 (2) (i) and accordingly, in the interim, directed that till the matter is decided by the Registrar, under Rule 41(2) (i), the post of the Director held by the present petitioner would remain vacant and thereafter it will be filled up in accordance with the decision of the Registrar. The appellate order is available at Annexure P-5 to the writ petition. However the Secretary remanded the cese to the Registrar for taking action as per provision of Rule 41 (2) (i) and further directed that Bhamnoli Co-operative Society was a necessary party in the proceedings before the Registrar as its right to continue as a Member would be affected. Thereafter, the Registrar passed the the impugned order with a direction that the above Co-operative Society be arrayed as respondent No. 4 to the present proceedings. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) The first point urged is that the impugned order of the Registrar is illegal, inasmuch as, the said Co-operative Society is not a necessary party. We are unable to accept the contention as the order of the Secretary has not been assailed before us regarding this direction and therefore the impugned order of the Registrar has been passed as per the direction of the Secretary and, as such, the Registrar being a Subordinate authority is bound by the direction of the Secretary.