Civil Writ Petition No.9534 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9534 of 2011 Date of Decision:26.05.2011 Balwant Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Jaito and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.M.S.Kang, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Having contested the election and lost, petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 claiming themselves to be the members, have challenged the election result of members of the Managing Committee of Doad Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Ltd., District Faridkot(for brevity “the respondent-Society”). 2. Concisely, the facts, necessary for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the present writ petition and emitting from the record, are that the petitioners claimed themselves to be the members of the respondent-Society, registered and governed by the provisions of The Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). As, the term of five years of elected members of the Managing Committee expired on 28.03.2011, therefore, a meeting of the respondent-Society was held on 08.04.2011. It was resolved that for the purpose of holding the election of the Managing Committee of respondent-Society, a general meeting to be convened on 12.05.2011, to elect the members of the Managing Committee in its office, in accordance with the Act, Rules and Bye-Laws. Civil Writ Petition No.9534 of 2011 2 3. Sequelly, after completing all the formalities, the indicated election was conducted as per rules. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were stated to be the eligible members of the respondent-Society. Petitioner No.1 Balwant Singh and respondent Nos.3 to 12 contested, but petitioner No.1 lost in the election. 4. The petitioners did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the declaration of the election result of the Managing Committee of the respondent-Society, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The case set-up by the petitioners, in brief, insofar as relevant, was that the Returning Officer did not conduct the election as per procedure provided in the Act, Rules and Bye-Laws and contrary to the election programme(Annexure P-1). He neither issued ballot papers to petitioner Nos.2 to 5, nor gave any reason in this respect. The petitioners claimed that the eligible voters were debarred from exercising their right to vote, without any basis. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioners sought the quashment of the election result, in the manner depicted hereinabove. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record and legal provisions with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 7. Having completed all the codal formalities and in pursuance of the election programme(Annexure P-1), the indicated election of the Managing Committee of the respondent-Society, was duly held on 12.05.2011, in accordance with law and as per election programme(Annexure P-1). The result was declared on the same day. Petitioner No.1 and respondent Nos.3 to 12 participated and contested, but petitioner No.1 lost the election. 8. Ex facie, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Returning Officer did not hold the election in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules, Bye-Laws and the election programame and, since, the eligible Civil Writ Petition No.9534 of 2011 3 voters were deprived of exercising their votes, so, the impugned election result is illegal, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 9. As is evident from the record that the previous term of the Managing Committee of the respondent-Society expired on 28.03.2011. For the purpose of holding the election of the Managing Committee of the respondent-Society, the election programme(Annexure P-1) was prepared vide resolution dated 08.04.2011 and the same was approved by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies- respondent No.1, which is in the following manner:- Sr. Description of Date Time Place No. Election Programme 1. Time of General Meeting 12.5.11 8 AM to 9AM Office of Doad Society 2. Filing of Nomination --do-- 9.30AM to 10AM -do-- Papers 3. Objection on Nomination --do-- 10AM to 10.30AM --do-- papers 4. Scrutiny of Nomination --do-- 10.30AM to 11AM --do-- Papers 5. Withdrawal of Nomination --do-- 11AM to 11.30AM --do-- Papers 6. Allotment of symbols --do-- 11.30AM to 12 O'clock --do-- 7. Time for polling --do-- 12.30PM to 4PM --do-- 10. What is not disputed here is that no objections whatsoever with regard to the eligibility or validity of the members, to cast their votes, were ever raised at any stage by the petitioners, before the commencement of the election process. Not only that, they did not raise any such objections at the time of filing of nomination papers or during the course of scrutiny, withdrawal and allotment of symbols, as depicted in the election programme(Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out that how, in what manner and stage, any legal provision was violated, vitiating the election result. Whether petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were entitled to participate in the election and other related objections raised in the Civil Writ Petition No.9534 of 2011 4 instant writ petition and urged on their behalf, ought to have been taken by them, before the commencement of the election process. Moreover, such disputed question of facts, whether petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were defaulters and ineligible voters or otherwise etc., cannot possibly be decided, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, after completion of election process, particularly when, as indicated earlier, petitioner No.1 contested and lost in the election. 11. 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 26, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE