Civil Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2010 Date of Decision: 5.10.2010 Sukhdev Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the order dated 11.8.2010 (Annexure P1), whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, be quashed, as the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law being arbitrary and without any legal basis. The controversy involved, in the present case, is in a very narrow compass. Rule 32 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1963”), which has been reproduced in para 3 of the written statement, filed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sardulgarh-cum-Returning Officer, on behalf of the respondents, reads as under:- Civil Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2010 2 “32. The term of the office of the elected Board shall be five years from the date of its election. Any interim vacancy accruing on the Managing Committee shall be filled through bye-election for the unexpired term of the Committee., The office bearers shall be elected by the elected members of the Board of Directors from amongst themselves. The term of the elected office bearers shall be co-terminus with the term of the Board provided that the elected office bearers can be removed by a vote of no confidence through a resolution, passed by two third majority of the total elected members of the Board. New office bearers shall be elected for the remaining term of the Board. The nominated members shall have no right to vote in the election or removal of office bearers. No person shall be eligible for being elected to the Board for two continuous terms unless a period of not less than one term has expired since he last so served”. The words, to be noticed, are that no person will be eligible for being elected to the Board for two continuous terms, unless a period of not less than one term has expired since he last so served. This rule has been wrongly interpreted to reject the nomination papers of the Civil Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2010 3 petitioner, who came forward to contest the election as the Managing Member of the Bareta Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited. The Returning Officer, while rejecting the nomination papers, had passed the order (Annexure P1), relevant portion whereof reads as under:- S. No. Name of the Member & Father's Name Zone No. 01 Sukhdev Singh s/o Harnek Singh, Bareta 02 02 Sukhdev Singh s/o Sarban Singh, Dialpura 03 The nomination papers of the above said members are hereby rejected in view of the registered Bye-laws of the Society because no member can become Managing Member continuously for two terms...”. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, on the instructions from Jethu Singh, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Budhlada, that the petitioner remained as a member of the Managing Committee, only for one term. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on 24.8.2010, had passed the following detailed order:- “In the present petition, order dated 11.08.2010 (Annexure P/1) is under challenge, whereby the nomination of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that as per By-laws of the Society, no member can become Managing member continuously for two terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner on 19th August, 2010, has placed on the Civil Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2010 4 record Photostat attested copy of the By-laws of the Society and had argued that as per the By-laws No.32, no person shall be eligible for being elected to the Board after he has served for two continuous terms unless a period of not less than one term has expired since he last so served. This Court on 19th August, 2010 has passed the following order:- “On being asked, Mr. S.K. Bhanot, Addl. A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.08.2010, thereby rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner on the ground that as per By-laws of the Society no member can become Managing member continuously for two terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed attested photocopies of the By-laws of the Society. By-laws No.32 reads as under:- “32. The term of the office of the elected Board shall be five years from the date of its election. Any interim vacancy according on the Managing Civil Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2010 5 Committee shall be filled through bye-election for the unexpired term of the committee. The office bearers shall be elected by the elected members of the Board of Directors from amongst themselves. The term of the elected office bearers shall be co-terminus with the term of the Board. Provided that the elected office bearers can be removed by a vote of no confidence through a resolution, passed by two third majority of the total elected members of the Board. New office bearers shall be elected for the remaining term of the Board. The nominated members shall have no right to vote in the election or removal of office bearers. No person shall be Civil Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2010 6 eligible for being elected to the Board after he has served on board for two continuous terms unless a period of not less than one term has expired since he last so served.” Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per the By-laws No.32, no person can be eligible for being elected to the Board after he has served on Board for two continuous terms. The photocopies produced today also shown to learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, and from the perusal of photocopy produced before the Court, it seems that words “after he has served on board” is added afterwards, and as to whether this addition is a part of By-laws requires confirmation. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab seeks shortest time to verify this fact. List on 23.8.2010. A photocopy of this order be given to learned counsel for the State under the signature of the Bench Secretary.” Civil Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2010 7 Today, Mr. Balwinder Singh, Returning Officer personally present in the Court, produced original register of the Co-operative Society through Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate. Register was perused with the help of Mr. Balwinder Singh, Returning Officer, Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate and Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. From the perusal of page No.25 of the original register, this Court finds that By-laws 32 reads as under:- “No person shall be eligible for being elected to the Board for two continuous terms.” Perusal of the photostat attested copy of the By-laws reads as under:- “No person shall be eligible for being elected to the Board after he has served on board for two continuous terms unless a period of not less than one term has expired since he last so served.” In the opinion of this Court, there is a big different between above said two clauses. Which one is correct is yet to be decided. No doubt, Section 26-B (2) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, reads as under:- Civil Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2010 8 “(2) No person shall be eligible for being elected to the committee of any co- operative society after he has served on the committee of the co-operative society for two continuous terms, unless a period of not less than one term has expired since he last so served.” It seems in the photocopy of the By-laws words “after he has served on board” were added by pen between word “Board” and “for”. Register produced also does not inspire confidence. Let issue be examined by the Registrar, Co-operative Society within a week. Registrar, Co- operative Society, shall file his report before the next date fixed to the effect which of the version is correct. Learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in the case of Phool Singh vs. Tulai Ram Gangwar and others, reported in 1996 Crl. Law Journal, 3818 in paragraph No.12 has held as under:- “Therefore, I am of the view that all these documents from passing resolution by LMC to recording mutation in favour of six landless persons, purported to have been made on 12th July, 1995 are forged and Civil Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2010 9 fabricated. The filing of the same before this Court, amounts to gross contempt of Court…..” Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Afzal and another vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court, 2326, in paragraph No.31 has held as under:- “The question then is: whether he committed contempt in the proceedings of this Court? Section 2(b) defines “Contempt of Court” to mean any civil or criminal contempt. “Criminal Contempt” defines in Section 2(c) means interference with the administration of justice in any other manner. A false or a misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and willfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order would prejudice or interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings….” Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bineet Kumar Singh, reported in (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases 501 in paragraph no.6 has held as under:- “…. Criminal contempt has been defined in Section 2(c) to mean interference with the administration of justice in any Civil Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2010 10 manner. A false or misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and willfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order would undoubtedly tantamount to interference with the due course of judicial proceedings….” In view of the settled principle of law as held by Hon’ble Apex Court and the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court, it can safely be said that if false, fabricated or interpolated document is filed before the Court to get favourable order, it amounts to criminal contempt of court. The fact remains that photostat copy of By-laws produced by the petitioner through his counsel contains the added words as observed above; while original register produced by Mr. Balwinder Singh, Returning Officer through Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate, does not contain added words. In the opinion of this Court, either the petitioner or Mr. Balwinder Singh or any other person who is found by the Registrar guilty, has committed gross criminal contempt by producing false, fabricated and interpolated document before this Court. The person prima facie found to be guilty by the Registrar shall be dealt with for committing Civil Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2010 11 criminal contempt of Court as observed hereinabove. Original register of the Society, as produced by Mr. Balwinder Singh, Returning Officer through Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate and alleged original By-laws produced before this Court by the Manager of the Society are being given in the custody of Sh. Kirat Singh Sidhu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for safe custody who shall produce the original documents before this Court on the next date of hearing. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, shall permit the Registrar, Cooperative Society to inspect the alleged original By-laws and register for the purpose of submitting report before this Court. On the next date of hearing, petitioner and Mr. Balwinder Singh, Returning Officer shall remain present in person before this Court. List on 15.09.2010. Result of the election in question shall be subject to the final decision of the petition. A photocopy of this order be given to learned counsel for the State under the signature of the Bench Secretary”. In terms of the order dated 24.8.2010, the Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Punjab, has conducted the enquiry and his report Civil Writ Petition No. 14699 of 2010 12 dated 14.9.2010 has been placed on the record of this case. Learned counsel for the respondents has very fairly submitted that since the petitioner has only completed one term of the Managing Committee, he is eligible to contest the election for the second term. Thus, this Court is of the view that considering Rule 32 of the Rules 1963 and the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, the impugned order dated 11.8.2010 (Annexure P1), whereby the nomination papers of the petitioner were rejected, cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same is quashed. It is stated that no individual candidate has been elected till today from Zone No.2. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from Jethu Singh, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Budhlada, who is present in the Court, submits that the vacancy, in Zone No.2, shall be filled up within a period of two months, from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the observations made above, the present writ petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 5, 2010 “DK”