UPENDRAPRASADSINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,

(2.) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the memo issued by the Block Delopment Officer, Katra (respondent No. 5), whereby and where under, the election of the members and office bearers of the Managing Committees of Bisautha PACS, Jajuar PACS and Berari PACS, have been notified to be held on 19-2-1994, 21-2-1994 and 22-2-1994, respectively at the Head-quarters of the Block Office, Katra. They have also prayed for quashing a memo dated 13-1-1994, contained in Annexure-2, issued by respondent No. 5, saying that the Sub- Divisional Officer, East Muzaffarpur, keeping in view the law and order problem, has decided that the elections of the PACS in question shall be held at the Block Head-quarter, Katra. Prayer in the present application, accordingly, is for a direction to the respondents to hold the elections of the Managing Committees of the aforesaid PACS in accordance with law at any place within the Head-quarters of the respective PACS in terms of Clause 20 of the Co-operative Bye-laws. It appears by a general notice dated 17-12-1993, contained in Annexure-1, it was notified that the elections of the PACs should be held on 21-1-1994, 23-1-1994 and 27-1-1994, respectively. In (he notification it was mentioned that the elections will be held at the Head-quarters of the concerned PACS in terms of Clause 20 of the Co-operative Bye-laws. But before the elections, as notified vide Annexure-1. could take place, under the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer, the Block Development, who is also the Election Officer, vide the impugned communication shifted the dates and venues of the proposed elections at the places, indicated above Mr. Pushkar Narayan Sahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that as per Clause 20 of the Co-operative Bye-laws, a special general meeting of the society shall be called at written request of the officer, authorised at such time and place, as specified in requisition at the Head-quarters of the Society. In view of the aforesaid provision, he contended that the respondent-authorities had no option but to notify the elections to be held at the Head-quarters of the PACS. It was next contended that having learnt about the decision of the authorities for changing the venue of the elections, an application was filed before the Additional Registrar Co-operative Societies (respondent No. 3), raising a grievance against the decision of the authorities. Respondent No, 1, having noticed the facts, indicated above, through his letters dated 17-1-1994 and 21-1-1994 directed the Block Development (respondent No 5) to follow the direction of the registrar (respondent No. 2) dated 25-2-93. contained in Annexure-4, that is to say, elections of the concerned PACS have to be conducted at the Head-quarters of the respective PACs. A copy of the direction of the Registrar is Annexure-4 whereas the letters of the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, are Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ application. Having noticed the facts and circumstances, stated above, we also perused the instruction of the Registrar, contained in Anoexure-4, and the relevant provisions of the Co-operative Bye-laws In our view, from a baie reference to the aforesaid, it would appear that an election of the Co-operative Society has to be conducted at its Head-quarters It cannot be overlooked that the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Block Development. Officer have taken a decision to get the respective election, conducted at the Block Head-quarter since according to them, there was law and order problem. Although we appreciate the anxiety of the concerned officials but the statutory provisions, which prescribe that the election of a Co operative Society has to be conducted at its Head-quarters, cannot be ignored. In that view of the matter, we have no option but to quash the impugned communications for the reasons, stated above. Accordingly, we direct the Block Development Officer-cum-Election Officer (respondent No. 5) to issue a fresh notice for holding the elections in question at the Head-quarters of the respective societies. Such notice has to be issued by 23rd of February, 1994, fixing dates of election in accordance with law. The Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent No 4), being the local administrative authority, is also directed to see that sufficient number of police authorities are deputed at the Head-quarters of the respective societies so that no untowards occurrence take place and the election be concluded in a peaceful manner. In the result, this writ application is allowed to the extent, indicated above, and the impugned communications are hereby quashed, Writ Application allowed.