IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.5989 of 2008 Date of Decision: 3.8.2010 Anil Rao. ....... Petitioner through Shri C.R.Dahiya, Advocate. Versus Asstt.Registrar,Coop.Societies, Rewari and others. .......Respondent nos. 1 & 3 through Shri B.S.Rana and Shri J.S.Toor, Additional Advocates General,Haryana. Respondent no.2 through Shri Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate. Respondent no.4 through Shri S.S.Dalal, Advocate. Respondent no.5 through Shri J.S.Yadav, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P6) issued by respondent no.1 vide which the election for the posts of President and Vice President of the Kakoria Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Ltd., Kakoria, Tehsil & C.W.P.No.5989 of 2008 -2- .... District Rewari (respondent no.4) scheduled to be held on 28.11.2007 was postponed. He has also sought quashing of letter dated 24.3.2008 (Annexure P7) and notice dated 5.4.2008 (Annexure P8) by which respondent no.3 was appointed as Presiding Officer for conducting election of the office bearers of respondent no.4 and the meeting of the members of the managing committee was called for 21.4.2008 at 11.30 A.M. by its Prabandhak for the said purpose. Still further, a direction has been sought to restrain the respondents from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner as President of respondent no.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that he and one Ram Phal were duly elected as President and Vice President of respondent no.4 in the meeting of the members of its managing committee held on 28.11.2007 at 3.05 P.M., the said meeting was postponed vide Annexure P6 and fresh elections have been ordered. The election of office bearers of managing committee of a cooperative society is governed by the provisions of Section 30 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act,1984 (for short, `the Act') while Section 28 of the Act contains the provisions about election and tenure of the committee. Section 29 of the Act prescribes for nomination and co-option on the committee of a cooperative society. Section 30 of the Act is relevant for the purpose of disposal of the instant petition which is reproduced below:- “30.Election of office-bearers.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of a co-operative society, the C.W.P.No.5989 of 2008 -3- .... members of the committee including those nominated under Section 29, shall elect from amongst themselves office bearers within sixty days of the election of the members of the committee. The meeting for such election shall be summoned and presided over by the Presiding Officer appointed by the Registrar. Provided that the election of office bearers shall not be postponed in case no person is nominated under Section 29 to the said Committee; Provided further that the election of office bearers of a primary, central and apex milk producers societies shall be conducted in accordance with their bye-laws; Provided further that where the Government have subscribed to the share capital of an apex co-operative society or a co- operative sugar mill to the extent of ten lakh rupees or more the Government may, notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of the society, appoint one of the members nominated under Section 29 as chairman of the committee of such society; Provided further no committee member shall be eligible for election as Chairman or Vice chairman of any cooperative society if he has served as such, whether before or after or partly before and partly after the commencement of this Act, for a continuous period of ten years unless a period of not less than five years has expired since he last so served.” C.W.P.No.5989 of 2008 -4- .... According to the petitioner, the Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Rewari-I was appointed by respondent no.1 vide letter dated 23.10.2007 (Annexure P1) as per the afore-quoted provisions as Presiding Officer for conducting the election of President and Vice President of the managing committee of respondent no.4 and the meeting was initially convened for 21.11.2007,but since the quorum was not complete, it was again fixed for 28.11.2007 at 2.00 P.M. It has been averred that the members were informed accordingly and in the meeting held on that day under the auspices of the Presiding Officer, the petitioner was elected as President. The extract of the proceeding book has been placed on record as Annexure P4. However, respondent no.1 postponed the said meeting on the pretext that a complaint had been received from the wife of one of the members, namely, Shri Ramphal, who was stated to be missing even though the proceedings of the meeting showed that he had participated in it and was elected as Vice President. The petitioner has, thus, pleaded that respondent no.1 could not have postponed the meeting of the committee members of respondent no.4 on such a flimsy ground. He has further pleaded that the notice of postponement was issued by respondent no.1 much after the election was held on 28.11.2007. Respondent nos. 1 & 3 and 4 have filed their written statements stating therein that there was no valid election held on 28.11.2007 as on the same very day, the meeting was postponed. It has been averred that the C.W.P.No.5989 of 2008 -5- .... Presiding Officer was under the influence of liquor at the time of said meeting which was confirmed in his medical examination conducted at 3.30 P.M. Reference has also been made to a copy of D.D.R. Recorded by the concerned police official about the complaint received against the Presiding Officer being under the influence of liquor. However, respondent no.2, who was appointed as Presiding Officer filed his reply stating therein that he had conducted the proceedings of the meeting in accordance with the law and the petitioner was duly elected as President of respondent no.4. Respondent no.5, in his short affidavit, has stated that he has no concern with the case. In the backdrop of the averments made by the parties, I proceed to determine the controversy raised in this petition. I am not inclined to comment upon the plea which has been raised with vehemence that the Presiding Officer appointed for conducting election of the President and Vice President of respondent no.1 was under the influence of liquor and thus, was unable to conduct the meeting held on 28.11.2007 for the simple reason that there was hardly any material from where it could be inferred that the said officer was impeded to perform his duties by such consumption of liquor. Likewise, I am not inclined to enter into any controversy as to whether the notice regarding postponement of the meeting was issued before the election or after the election had been concluded on 28.11.2007. These are the questions of fact which cannot be determined in a writ petition. C.W.P.No.5989 of 2008 -6- .... As per the provisions of Section 30 of the Act, which have been extracted above, the meeting for the election of office bears of a cooperative society is “ to be summoned and presided over by the Presiding Officer appointed by the Registrar.” If the material on record is to be perused, then there is evidence in the form of Annexure P3 to show that the notice for the meeting of the committee to elect the office bearers was issued by the Manager of respondent no.1 and not by the Presiding Officer. Even the subsequent notice Annexure P8 has been issued by the Manager. Therefore, the meeting which was summoned for 28.11.2007 could not be said to be a validly convened meeting as the notice therefor was in violation of the provisions of Section 30 of the Act. Once it is found that the meeting was not summoned in accordance with mandate of Section 30 of the Act, all subsequent actions necessarily have to be invalidated and cannot be legitimised or recognised in law. It is with an obvious intent that the provisions of Section 30 of the Act contemplates the issuance of summons by the Presiding Officer because once such an officer is appointed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, then it is in his domain to ensure free and fair election of the office bearers of a society and in such an eventuality, neither the Manager nor any other person has the authority to issue a summon or to intervene in this process. In this view of the matter, the instant writ petition is held to be C.W.P.No.5989 of 2008 -7- .... without any merit and is dismissed. However, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana shall appoint a Presiding Officer afresh, who shall, after observance of the relevant provisions of law, and under valid intimation to all the elected/ nominated members of the managing committee of respondent no.4, shall conduct the election of its office bearers. August 3,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge