Civil Writ Petition No.17663 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17663 of 2010 Date of Decision:12.05.2011 Yadwinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Surender Singh Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Palwinder Singh, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr.Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the programme(Annexure P-1), for conducting the election of the Managing Committee of The Ludhiana Cooperative Marketing Society Limited(for brevity “the respondent-Society”), scheduled to be held on 14.09.2010, (Annexure P-1) was issued, in view of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act,1961/Rules,1963(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act/Rules”). The petitioner was not the eligible voter of Zone No.3 of the respondent-Society, but was stated to have transacted some business with it(Society) and also filed the nomination papers, which were claimed to have been accepted by the Returning Officer. Since, the petitioner was not the actual member and his name was not included in the list of eligible voters, so, one Sukhjinder Singh son of Gurdeep Civil Writ Petition No.17663 of 2010 2 Singh, (eligible voter) filed a Civil Writ Petition bearing No.16382 of 2010 titled as Sukhjinder Singh Versus Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others, for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the official respondents to hold and conduct the election of the respondent-Society, in accordance with the election programme, as per approved list of eligible voters of Zone No.3. The further direction was sought to restrain the official respondents from conducting the election illegally, by including new persons, who are disqualified under Rule 25(g) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 as well as Rule 9.1(f) of the Guidelines/Directions issued for elections of the Managing Committees of Cooperative Societies read with amended Bye-Law 32.2 of the Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies and prohibiting the respondents from conducting the voting process in Zone No.3 beyond the list of eligible voters and for allowing the petitioner to contest the election in the said Zone. 2. The writ petition came to be disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court(Mahesh Grover, J.) by virtue of order dated 13.09.2010, the operative part of which is, as under:- “At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner produced before the Court a copy of letter dated 13.9.2010 which has been sent by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab through fax to Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, and stated that the same addresses the grievance of the petitioner. In the light of the said letter, she stated that the petitioner does not wish to press the instant petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as having not been pressed.” 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned letter dated 13.09.2010(Annexure P-7) on the ground that the Registrar did not have the jurisdiction to issue such letter, after the commencement of election process. 4. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed their written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the Civil Writ Petition No.17663 of 2010 3 petitioner. The respondents claimed that the letter(Annexure P-7) was issued to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, only to ensure that the election of respondent-Society, is held strictly in accordance with the approved voter-list. It was alleged that since the election has already been held, so, the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy of election petition. 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. 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 context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that once the election process has commenced, then the Registrar did not have any jurisdiction to issue letter(Annexure P-7), is neither tenable, nor the observation of this Court in case Om Parkash Mann Versus State of Haryana, 2001(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 743, is at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, it was observed that once the election process was set in motion, as envisaged under Section 28 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies ceased functus officio to issue any further direction in the matter. Hardly, there is any quarrel in regard to the aforesaid observation, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the present controversy. 7. As is evident from the record that the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of eligible voters, but still he submitted his nomination papers on the ground that he had transacted the business of the Society. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Registrar by Sukhjinder Singh that the nomination papers of the petitioner, who was not an eligible member, have been accepted, then the Registrar issued the impugned letter(Annexure P-7), advising the Deputy Registrar, to conduct the election, as per voter-list and not otherwise. Possibly, it cannot be denied that the election of the respondent-Society was to be held in Civil Writ Petition No.17663 of 2010 4 accordance with law and amongst the eligible voters. Learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to point out that the name of the petitioner was in the list of eligible voters, at the time of issuance of election programme(Annexure P-1). Once, the petitioner was not an eligible voter, then the question of contesting the election of the Managing Committee, was contrary to the statutory rules/regulations framed under the Act. The Registrar through the medium of impugned order dated 13.09.2010(Annexure P-7) has only advised the Deputy Registrar, to conduct the election, as per voter-list and law. Therefore, no fault could possibly be traced in the impugned letter(Annexure P-7). Hence, the contrary argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be ignored, being devoid of merit. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. May 12, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE