CWP No.16309 of 2009 : 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 25.11.2009 Ranjit Singh ... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Ashwani Prashar, Advocate, for the petitioner. PERMOD KOHLI, J. Petitioner and respondent No.5 are members of respondent No.4 Society. The election to the Managing Committee of the aforesaid society was notified to be held on 16/17 July, 2009. The petitioner and respondent No.5 both contested the election. As many as 13 candidates contested the election and 9 of them were to be elected by the General Body of the society. The election was held on 17.07.2009. The petitioner secured 28 votes and was declared elected, whereas respondent No.5 secured 45 votes and was declared defeated. Since the votes polled in favour of respondent No.5 were more than the petitioner, respondent No.5 filed an election petition before the Deputy Registrar, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, under Section 55 and 56 read with Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), challenging the election of Ranjit CWP No.16309 of 2009 : 2 Singh, petitioner herein. The Deputy Registrar, after hearing both the sides, passed the order dated 27.08.2009 (Annexure P-4) setting aside the election of the petitioner as a member of the Managing Committee and declared respondent No.5 as winning candidate as a member of the Managing Committee of the Society. The petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, being Appeal No.18 of 2009 under Section 68 of the Act. The said appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2009 (Annexure P-6). Both these orders are subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The petitioner who was declared as elected candidate, has justified his election on the ground that under the Bye laws of the Society, Zones have been created and there are zones called Sall Khurd and Sall Kalan besides Jandiala. Petitioner Ranjit Singh belongs to village Sall Kalan whereas respondent No.5 Bhagat Ram belong to village Sall Khurd. It is stated that both the villages have more than 50 members and in terms of Bye-law 32 (1) of the Act, one member is to be elected from these villages. Since petitioner Ranjit Singh secured 28 votes from village Sall Kalan and one member was necessary to be elected from the said zone,he has been elected and respondent No.5 though secured more votes, has been declared unsuccessful. Both the authorities below rejected the contention of the CWP No.16309 of 2009 : 3 petitioner on the ground that a common election was held in the general body meeting. Voting was common for all the candidates and, thus, only the candidate securing more votes are to be declared elected as it was not a zonewise election. Bye-law 32 of the Bye laws of the Society reads as under:- “32 (1) Nine persons to be elected from amongst the members by the general body of the society provided that at least one member of the Committee shall be elected from each village in the area of operation of the Society having not less than 50 members”. The aforesaid Bye law provide that 9 persons are to be elected from amongst the members by the general body of the society and at least one member of the Committee shall be elected from different village in the area of operation of the society having not less than 50 members. It is under this bye-law that the petitioner claims that he was declared elected notwithstanding the higher votes of respondent No.5 The petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another Vs. The State of Punjab and others, 1976 PLJ, 81, to contend that election has to be conducted on zones basis. I have perused the aforesaid judgment. In this case a zonal list was prepared under Rule 4 (3) contained in Appendix-C to the CWP No.16309 of 2009 : 4 Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules and this voter list was approved by the Registrar. The election was held on the basis of the zonal list of voters which was challenged on the ground of non-compliance of the rules. The challenge to the election was, however, rejected on the ground that the statutory approval granted by the Registrar over-rides the bye-laws. The judgment aforesaid has no application to the facts of the present case. In the present case, no zonal list of the voters was prepared. It was a single constituency election in the general body meeting. Admittedly, area of operation of the society was not divided into the zones as required under Section 5 (1) in the elections of the Primary Cooperative Society and Rule 4 (3) of Appendix -C and, thus, the petitioner could not have been declared elected with lessor number of votes merely on the ground that he belong to a particular village. In a single constituency election where there is common voter list and no zones are carved out, it is not possible to ascertain whether a particular candidate has been voted by the voter of a particular zone. One of the basic requirement for carving a zone, there should be more than 50 members from a particular village. There is no material on record to show that the village Sall Kalan had more than 50 members in the society. In a single constituency election, a candidate who secured higher votes has to be declared elected. Both the authorities have rightly declared respondent No.5 as elected having secured 45 votes as against the petitioner who secured only 28 votes. CWP No.16309 of 2009 : 5 The other contention of Mr.Ashwani Prashar is that no writ lies to challenge the bye laws and he has also placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Gurappa Vs. South Central Railway Employees Consumers Co-op. Society Ltd. and others, 1983 (1) SLR, 34. I fail to understand as to how this judgment has any relevance on the facts of the present case. There is no challenge to the bye-laws. Bye -law 32 itself has no application to the present case. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 25.11.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES