Civil Writ Petition No.19546 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 1.3.2011 Surjit Singh s/o Dalip Singh ...Petitioner versus Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.I.S.Saggu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Palwinder Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. Nemo for respondent Nos.6 and 7. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The petitioner has directed the instant writ petition, in the nature of certiorari for quashing the election result dated 16.10.2010 of respondent No.5 as Director of the Gurdaspur District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited (Milk Plant), Gurdaspur (for brevity “union”), inter-alia on the grounds that he was not eligible to contest the elections mentioned in the writ petition. 2. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed their separate written statements, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of election petition, challenging the election result of respondent No.5, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. It was explained by respondent No.4 that to begin with, ten Directors were elected in the election held in the month of August 1999 and the first meeting of newly elected Board of union was held on 4.10.1999 for electing office bearers, by virtue of proceedings/resolution (Annexure R4/1). Thereafter, bye election from zone No.9 of the union was held Civil Writ Petition No.19546 of 2010 2 in September-October, 2002, respondent No.5 contested the same and was elected as a Director of the union for remaining term of less than two years. Again in the election of the union held in August, 2004, respondent No.5 was got elected as a Director of union and only remained as such upto August, 2009. Therefore, he was eligible to contest the election. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record and legal provisions with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition is not directly maintainable at this stage. 4. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since respondent No.5 is MLA, so, the petitioner will not expect justice in the election petition, is neither tenable in the absence of any cogent material on record in this direction nor the observations of this Court in cases Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 (1) R.R.R.16 and Nachhattar Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others 1993 P.L.J. 438, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it was observed that if there is no dispute about the fact and no evidence is to be led, then there is no bar and High Court may entertain the writ petition. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the present controversy. 5. What is not disputed here is that petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No.5, inter-alia, on the grounds that he was ineligible to contest the same as he has already served the Board of Directors continuously for two terms. It has specifically been explained by respondent No.4 that initially ten Directors were elected in the election held in the month of August 1999. The first meeting of newly elected Board of union was held on 4.10.1999 for electing office bearers, by way of proceedings/resolution (Annexure R4/1). Subsequently, bye Civil Writ Petition No.19546 of 2010 3 election from zone No.9 of the union was held in September-October, 2002, respondent No.5 contested the same and was elected as a Director of the union for remaining term of less than two years. Again in the election of the union held in August, 2004, respondent No.5 was elected as a Director of union and only remained as such upto August, 2009. 6. Whether respondent No.5 remained on the Board of Directors continuously for two terms rendering him ineligible (as claimed by the petitioner) or he remained as such for the remaining limited indicated period, which is not disqualification to contest the election, as urged on behalf of the respondents and what would be its effect will be the moot points to be decided, which naturally requires the production of evidence on record by the parties. This controversy can only be decided if the parties produce evidence in order to substantiate their respective stands. 7. On the contrary, the preliminary objection/argument of learned counsel for contesting respondents that as the alternative remedy of election petition is available to the petitioner, therefore, his writ petition, challenging the election result is not maintainable, has considerable force. This matter is not res integra and is well settled. 8. An identical question arose before this Court in CWP No.18931 of 2010 titled as “Indu Lata Aggarwal and another v. The Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Patiala Division and others” decided on 24.2.2011. Having relied on a Division Bench judgment dated 9.3.2004 of this Court, rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.17761 of 2003 titled as “Pritam Singh vs. State of Punjab and others” and judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Umesh Shivappa Ambi and others v. Angadi Shekara Basappa and others AIR 1999 SC 1566, it was ruled that where alternative remedy of challenging the election by means of election petition is available to the petitioner, then the writ petition straightway is not maintainable. The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is Civil Writ Petition No.19546 of 2010 4 applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 9. As the petitioner has not availed the alternative statutory remedy of filing the election petition, therefore, the writ petition is not directly maintainable in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of election petition, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as being not directly maintainable at this stage. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 1.3.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No