Civil Writ Petition No.2753 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2753 of 2011 Date of Decision:02.12.2011 Charan Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.N.S.Khandola, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajpreet Singh Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.I.S.Saggu, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, The Rattangarh Cooperative Agricultural Society, Limited(respondent No.4)(for brevity “the respondent-Society”) is a registered society and is governed by The Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961 and the Rules/Bye-Laws framed thereunder(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and the Relevant Rules”). The election of the Managing Committee of the respondent-Society was held on 26.08.2008. During the commencement of election process, nomination papers of petitioner-Charan Singh, were rejected, whereas private respondent Nos.5 to 7 were elected as the Members of the Managing Committee. 2. Aggrieved by the election result, the petitioner filed the election- petition, challenging the indicated election of respondent Nos.5 to 7, which was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, by virtue of impugned order dated 04.03.2009(Annexure P-3). Civil Writ Petition No.2753 of 2011 2 3. Sequelly, the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Joint Registrar(Farming) Cooperative Societies, Punjab, by means of impugned order dated 02.12.2009(Annexure P-4) and the revision petition filed by him was dismissed as well, by the Special Secretary, Cooperation Department, Punjab, by way of impugned order dated 30.09.2010(Annexure P-5). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present civil writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-3 to P-5), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this regard. 6. However, the argument of the learned counsel that, since, respondent Nos.5 to 7 were defaulters and no statutory notice was issued, so, the impugned election was illegal, sans merit. 7. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that, the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, taking into consideration the entire record/material and after following the due procedure, negatived the claim of the petitioner and dismissed the election petition, through the medium of impugned order dated 04.03.2009(Annexure P-3), which in substance is as under:- “After hearing both the parties and perusing the record and after hearing the arguments, I have reached the conclusion that the information regarding the election of the Managing Committee of the Society was given before 15 days before the election through Munadi. This plea of the petitioner is false that they have no information if they have no information then how they filed the nomination papers. So far the papers of the Khushal Singh are concerned that has been received after the time is over. This contention is also wrong. The paper of Khushal Singh has been received in time. These papers has been rejected by the Returning Officer on the basis of the report of the Secretary of the Society and record of the Sabha by writing that they are the defaulters of the loan. So far as the forms of the Charan Singh are concerned. The Returning Officer has Civil Writ Petition No.2753 of 2011 3 rejected by writing that Shri Kuldeep Singh son of Shri Ajmer Singh has proposed the nomination paper while Shri Kuldeep Singh has also proposed the nomination papers of Sh.Khushal Singh which is not right according to law. Consequently, the nomination papers are rejected. In view of the above, the petition of the petitioner is rejected.” 8. Not only that, the order(Annexure P-3) was further upheld by the Appellate/Revisional Authorities vide impugned orders(Annexures P-4 and P-5), respectively. 9. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to indicate that the elected respondent Nos.5 to 7 were defaulters, at the time of commencement of election. On the contrary, they have produced on record the Certificate(Annexure R-5/I), certifying that Harpal Singh son of Joginder Singh (respondent No.5) has paid the entire due loan amount on 11.12.2007(much prior to the commencement of election process). He never remained defaulter of the society and has been depositing the loan amount in time. Likewise, there is no material on record, even to suggest remotely that any of the elected member was defaulter at the relevant time. 10. In this manner, the Election Tribunal, the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities have rightly examined the matter in the right perspective and came to the conclusion that all the statutory provisions have been complied with and the petitioner has miserably failed to prove any of the ground taken in the election-petition. Thus, to me, as no ground for interference, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, is made out, therefore, the impugned orders (Annexures P-3 to P-5) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. Civil Writ Petition No.2753 of 2011 4 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. December 02, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No