Civil Writ Petition No.5109 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5109 of 2011 Date of Decision:25.05.2011 Prem Parkash ......Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Surender Singh Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Narender Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The challenge in this writ petition, is to the impugned letter dated 08.03.2011(Annexure P-3), by virtue of which, a meeting was fixed and scheduled to be held on 24.03.2011, to conduct the election of office bearers of the managing-Committee of the Rewari Central Cooperative Bank Limited-respondent No.4(for brevity “the respondent-Bank”), by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon, which reads as under:- “Subject: For calling the meeting of managing committee for conducting the election of office bearers of the Rewari Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rewari. Memo On the subject cited above, vide Head Office memo No.15/13/CB/EA/12825-27 dated 18.10.10, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon, has been appointed as the Presiding Officer for conducting the election of office bearers of the Civil Writ Petition No.5109 of 2011 2 managing committee of the Rewari Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Rewari. Thus, you all are hereby informed that a meeting is fixed for 24.3.2011 at 4.00 PM in the office premises of the Rewari Central Cooperative Bank Ltd; Rewari for the election of the office bearers of the managing committee of the Rewari Central Cooperative Bank Ltd; Rewari. Therefore, you all are requested to come present on the said date, time and place.” 2. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned letter/order(Annexure P-3), inter alia, pleading that as the managing-Committee of the respondent-Bank, did not co-opt the two professional Directors, therefore, the initiation of indicated election process, by way of impugned letter(Annexure P-3), is against the statutory provisions of Section 29 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) and the Bye-Laws framed therein, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The respondents refuted the claim of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their joint short written statement, while respondent No.4 filed its separate short written statement, inter alia, pleading that since, the election process of the office bearers of the respondent-Bank, has already been completed on 18.04.2011 and the result(Annexure R-1/1) has already been declared on the same day, so, the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing the election petition, as per Section 102 of the Act and the present writ petition is not maintainable. The respondents further explained that the petitioner has duly participated in the election process, which was held as per legal provisions of the Act and Bye-Laws. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record and legal provisions with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this Civil Writ Petition No.5109 of 2011 3 context. 5. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that as the indicated election cannot be held without co-opting two professional Directors, in view of Section 29 of the Act and Model Bye-Laws(Annexure P-1), therefore, the initiation of election process, was illegal, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. 6. As is clear that Section 29 of the Act deals with the nomination of persons of the managing-Committee of Society by the Government or any person authorised by it. Sequelly, Bye-Law 27 of the Model Bye-Laws(Annexure P-1) posits the manner, in which the Board of Directors shall be constituted. 7. A conjoint reading of these provisions only postulates the manner of election of the members of the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank. It is no where provided that the indicated election cannot be held without nomination/co-option of the members. On the contrary, first 7 Directors are to be elected by the Primary Cooperative Agricultural Credit/Service Societies and Farmers Service Societies, holding shares in the Bank under Clause (a), three Directors to be elected by the Cooperative Societies, as per clause (b) and only then two professional Directors are to be co-opted, as contemplated under clause (c) of Bye-Laws(Annexure P-1). Therefore, to me, the process of nomination will start only after completion of the election and not before. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal provisions or precedent to prove his contention that two professional Directors have to be nominated/co-opted before initiation of the election process in this relevant connection. 9. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that since the election was duly held, as per legal provisions of the Act and amended Bye-Laws, in which the petitioner has duly participated and the election result (Annexure R-1/1) was declared on the same day, so, no relief can be granted to the Civil Writ Petition No.5109 of 2011 4 petitioner in this writ petition, has considerable force and the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. May 25, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE