IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.309 of 2010 Reserved on: 16.3.2011 Date of decision: 21.3.2011 Bhagi Rath …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.R.P.Singh, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 7. ____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 1.7.2010 whereby he has been impleaded as respondent in the appeal filed before the learned Additional Registrar (Monitoring) Co-operative Societies, Shimla by the private respondents No.3 to 7 herein. 2 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents No.3 to 7 filed a Reference Petition under Section 72 of the H.P Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Solan. The main prayer made in the Reference Petition was that the election of the Managing Committee of Baghal Land Loosers Transport Cooperative Society- respondent No.8 held on 26.12.2009 was illegal and be set aside. The grievance of the petitioners was that one Sh.Lachhi Ram Thakur had been appointed as Administrator of the respondent No.8-Soceity and also as Returning Officer for conducting the elections which caused prejudice to the petitioners. Other grounds were also raised but the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Solan held that since he had appointed Sh.Lachhi Ram Thakur as Administrator as well as Returning Officer, it would not be proper for him to entertain and try the case. The petition was dismissed as not being maintainable before him and the respondents No.3 to 7 were given liberty to file reference/representation before the next higher authority. 3 3. Thereafter, respondents No.3 to 7 filed an appeal under Section 93 of the Act before the Registrar (Co-operative Society), Shimla on the same grounds claiming that the respondent No.2 herein should have decided their Reference Petition on merits but since he had not decided the same, they were filing the appeal and prayed that their appeal/reference may be allowed and the election of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.8- Soceity held on 26.12.2009 be set aside. 4. When this appeal was pending, an application was filed by the appellants-respondents No.3 to 7 to implead the present petitioner and 12 others as respondents in the case since they had been elected as member(s) of the Managing Committee. This application was allowed by the Additional Registrar (Monitoring) Co-operative Societies, Shimla. This order is under challenge in this petition. 5. I have heard Sh.Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sh.Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Sh.R.P.Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents. 4 6. The main contentions raised by Sh.Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner could not have been impleaded as respondent in the appeal and since the proceedings were virtually in the nature of election proceedings, the election dated 26.12.2009 could not be set aside after the period of limitation for challenging the election had expired. It is also contended that no order of impleading parties could have been issued without hearing them. 7. In my view, the petitioner was a necessary party to the proceedings since he would be definitely affected by the ultimate order which may be passed in the petition filed by respondents No.3 to 7. Therefore, it is not necessary to set aside the order of the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Shimla. It is however made clear that the present petitioner shall be at liberty to plead before the concerned authority that since he has been impleaded at a later stage, the petition against him is time barred and that limitation against him has to be reckoned from the date when he was impleaded as party. I am not expressing any opinion on the merits 5 of the rival contentions of the parties but respondent No.2 must decide these questions. Therefore, the petition is rejected. Since the elections to the Managing Committee of the respondent No.8-Society have been challenged in this petition, the respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the petition at the earliest and in any event not later than 31.12.2011. 8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. March 21, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge