RATTAN CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., respondent No. 5, is a society registered under the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter called the Act. A vacancy on the Board of Directors of this Bank which is its governing body for the purposes of the Act, arose which pertained to Hamirpur zone of the society. It may be observed that for the purposes of election to its governing body, this society had been divided into various zones. The vacancy referred to above was required to be filled by election which was to be conducted in accordance with the election rules found at Appendix 'A' to the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1970, hereinafter called 'the Rules'.

(2.) In order to conduct such elections, the Managing Director of respondent No. 5 had drawn up detailed programme of election, a copy of which is found at Annexure-A. Invitations were also given to the eligible candidates to file their nomination papers to contest this election. In response to those invitations the petitioner as also Shri Bhumi Dev, respondent No. 4, filed their nomination papers. In fact they were the only two candidates who filed their nomination papers to contest this election. Whereas the nomination papers filed by respondent No. 4 were accepted, the same filed by the petitioner were rejected by respondent No. 3 who had been appointed as a Returning Officer for the purposes of this election. The petitioner apprehended that respondent No. 3 had rejected his nomination papers on ulterior consideration as this respondent was interested in the election of respondent No. 4 who was the only other candidate at the election. The petitioner, however, was not informed of the reasons which weighed with respondent No. 3 in rejecting his nomination papers. He, therefore, approached this Court with the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution praying that the order passed by respondent No. 3 rejecting his nomination papers be quashed and directions be issued to this respondent to continue and complete the election process in accordance with the election programme found at Annexure-A after accepting the nomination papers of the petitioner.

(3.) The respondents in their reply affidavit justified the order of respondent No. 3 rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner. A copy of the order passed by respondent No. 3 rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner was annexed with this reply as Annexure-R3. This order speaks for itself and shows that the nomination papers of the petitioner were rejected on the ground that the petitioner being already a member of the managing committees of two other secondary societies, he could not be appointed on the managing committee of yet another society in view of the bar placed by Rule 42 of the Rules. In other words, according to the view of the learned Returning Officer, it was not open for the petitioner to contest election for membership on the managing committee of a third society when he was already a member of the managing committees of two other societies.