^JY^ IN THE HIGH COURTOFJU.DLCATURE CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. i<?'3i^ 1 2004 Petitioner >- Versus Respondents KtK'iiagie / Smt. Rajendra Kaur W/o Sardar Sohendra Singh, aged about 51 years, Devendra Nagar, Raipur - (C.G.) 1. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Krashak Nagar, Labhandi, Raipur -(C.G.) ..'*\<ui<' 3. The Dy.Registrar, Co-operative Societies, JA^;''S^ Raipur-(C.G-) ^.«^ ^••^^ •w / ."''/l-'.' ^yy' ,<*'->;i<ry J^/ ^'^' ^^. 4. Shri K. L .Dhargave, Dy. Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Krashak Nagar, Labhandi, Raipur - (C.G.) 5. Shri Uinesh Tiwari, Assistant Registrar, (Election Officer). Diirg - (C.G.) .^i ,,.n.^-uv^6. State of Chhattisgarh fhrough the Secretary fc\ / SSinSt'1 Co-operative Department, DKS Bhawan, ..^6'" Raipur-fC.G.) _(/ _ . _. / WRIT PETTTION U/A2'26 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Particulars of the Petitianer_. As per cause tifle. 2. Pariculars of the Respondents. As per cause title. 3. Particulars of the order agatnst which the petition is being filed : The present petition is not being filed agatnst any particular order but tihe same is against the UIegal and arbitraiy action of the respondents by which despite of fhe declared election prograrmne siss^^M^^'^is^^^'' XI-HC-22 3^ -iiwid^, (SiTll^'ie, fsiciiuy 3t^i ^acf^ ^_^ ^ LO .^P. \ 2^0 (o-2., (Cf_fy-S-lc, ^•o.^<n^£/a^ «41t<(^lriit<|tti""""""""""" ^ 9W- (cio«a"""""""""'" B!tst tVWt zi^Wl (^•nt(i3ii^T r-gf^T 3T^?r^<nwgi?(T 10-8-2005 Mr. P. Dw/aker, Sentor Advlscate with Mr. Kunal Das,Advocate for the petiConere. Mr. Yashwant Singh Thaku( No.1 to3and6. Mr.P.S. Koshy, Mvocate forji Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate 1445^002. Heard. : Writ PeBtion Nos.1230/200^, same issue, therefore, they are beinjg disposed of by this common ord^-. I.A.Nos.7790a002 and; i|', Govt Advocate for the State/respondents |respondentNo.4. <or interveners in W.P.Nos.1230/2002and fc, 1445/2002 and 1936/2004 relate to the 37&J2004. I.A.N0.770K2002 has-beefi Authonzed Offlcer, It Is stated in the applteation measure, thisjCourt directed the Socieiy. / Respondent No^ ^i Officer and the said Election Office^ for the membership tist from the wherein the names of persons who| refiectecf. On 8-11-2CX32, the peoj objections before Uie Election Societies Act. 1960, enumerates and who does not suffer from a^ members of the said Society from &|< OfRcter Utat «hl'ilt<-f41.fTOIcft"it" rs'<!l<Rl^<K ^;3<KiidiA<i" .' for clarifteatron/ntodificatton of the order dated respbfTdent filed on behaff of respondent No.4, the 15-7-2002. that vldeorder dated 5-7-2002, as an interim N6.4 not to enroll any new member to (ppointed respondent No.5 as the EiecBon in the meanwhite issued notrees and called The Bank authorities submitted a tist |had recentiy apptied for membership are not )!e who are seeking fresh membershlp ffled stating that the Chhatfisgarti Co-operative any person who applied ftw membership ly disqualificafon shall be deemed to be |e date they have ap^ied for member^iip. gank (<f^y^) ^^S,^^ ,.^j.l^BT-i^ XI-HC-22 3:5g''3na[RPT, »Tflu'i<o,fsiowy 11^1 il^ch t^.^.^'^0 fn'iy (^^^a^ 1<^ (°^- IIICTI aiiith ••••••••••••••••••••• g^ -^Wt- ^s,' ""WSBSSS'Ste sn^rw feraanisr OTR;H1?(T ts'aafii k !^^ sn^?T??aiw Hfer beeh circumstdnces tt is submitted that before appfied for membership in ttie membership on account ofthe inter Along with e submission; and 6 in W.P.No.1445/2002 a membership in ttie Society has Leamed Govt. Advocate s| persons have deposited the memb) not deposited the membership fees) Therefbre, in such applications of (hose 701 person^ fees. Apart from that, teamed Se^ even ttie .objecUon regardlng Socfety was already withdrawn and| As far as IA.No.375/20041 subsequent events on recofd-and| concemed; in view of fte fact that deposted the membership fees a| was withdrawn before ttie Eiectiort the application, IANo.r70)/2002. However, for the remainino two| membership fees, the Authoriz^c regarding ttieir membership, in ac4< petitioners. ^-7-2(X)2, more than 700 new persons have pociety and they have not been granted \m retief granted by this Court. made on behalf of respondents No-1 to 3 |st of 703 persons who have applied for annexed. ttbmits ttiat out of 703 persons, only faro irship fees and remaining 701 persons have wi^^-l imw'itts'^ <Kiw< ^srt^iraTr^r nst^nces, there is no question of considering the who have not deposited the memberehip lior Advocate for the petitioners argued that reg|stering those persons as members In the |an applfcation was moved to thfs effect. ftled on behalf of fte petittoner for brining issuance of directions to the respondents, is out of 703 persons, 701 persons have not id even tfie objection raised by 12 persons Officer, therefore, there is no substance in The said appllcation is accorclingly, rejected. pereons who have alreacfy deposited the Officer is entitled to decide the issue ordance with law, after hearing them and the ('flo^foi) XI-HC-22 3?g'^pn?ra', ttTn«'ie,l«idi+iy II^IM^ctl C^.-p. ('23^0/0'^., (^tf-5/o-^ -OM^ C^3,&^ ^Wf\\ shW'h ••••••••••••••••••••• )(T^ 20®- ; f°re^ sn^rqiT ^TR?3I1^T g^iT^gfscf siwi gwiiwylea Writ PetitionN05.1230/200)2.1445/2002 and 1936/2004 By Writ Petition Nos.1230/I2(K}2 and 1445/2002, the petitioners have questioned the tegality, propriety afid correctness of the order dated 12-6-20)2 (Annexure A-11) passed by the ^dditipnai Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur, whereby the Additional (^egistrar while exereising the power under clause (ii) of sub-section (8) of ^ection 49 of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Sodeties Act, 1960 (hereinafter re(erred to as "tte Act, 1960"), superseded the Society i.e. Nagarik Sahkari B^nk Limited, Raipur, and appointed K.L Dhargave, Deputy Regislrar, Co-oi Whereas in W.P-No.1936/2004, it 9-11-2002, whereby the Eiection Qfficer had stayed Ihe elecfion process offte saM Society. Brief facts leading to filing No.1230/2002, are at etections] Sahkari Bank Limited were held In elected Committee was held on to 11-4-2002fi.e. for five yeare. was taken to request the Reglstrail resolution, the Director along with ^ communteation dated 17-1-2002 However, no actton was taken by «hi<itn<fl-f*iiti<iTfffec^t<Ri«;K ^sri^Tsn^r >eraSve Sociefies, as the Authorized Officer. las been prayed to set aside the order dated of these writ pefitions, as set out in W.P. of the Co-operative Sodety i.e. Nagarik |the year 1997 and first meeting of the newfy 12-4-1987. As per the provisrons of sub- sedion (7-A) df Section 49 of the j^d, 1983, ttie term of the Committee was up Ite the term of the said Committee was to expire on 11-4-2002, in the meetin^ of the Board of Directors of ttie Committee he!d on 11-1-2002, a resolution (Aijinexure A-1) was passed in which a decision to hold the eiections. Pursuant to the said copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors submitted an applicatjon (Annexure A-2) in which a request was made to appoint the Eisctioh OfR(»r. Thereupon, the Deputy Registrar vide Annexure A-3) requested the Registrar to appoirrt the Election OfRcer so ttjat elecb'ons of the Society coutd be held. the Registrar. The D<rector again made a ('ll^sKai) 3( XI-HC-22 3^ -^ww<i, ^wita, f»t<~it<^y ^<1^14a<^ U.^.C^^fP^, ^^-£/D^^^L\^^^/6^ ^wwt shtii* •-<••••••••••••••'•••• g^- 200 Rl'b< ;;iB]| ?[T??T?iT :3TlS?T ^XT^^STei 3T]^T S^dTER Bft(T - ij\ request to e Additionaf Registrar, dated 9-4-2002 (Annexure A-4) to po-operative Societies vide communication ^ippoint the Election Officer, but no Officer was appointed. Since the reque^t of the Society evoked no response to conduct the eiections of the Socie^y, as such, in pursuance of the second proviso to sub-section (8) of SectK+i 48 of the Act, 1960, the Society held a meeting of the Board of Directors or| 20 Aprit, 2002 (Annexure A-5) and in the said meeting the Board of Directcjrs appointed the Election Officer namely Mukesh Ramwani, and accordingly, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative |a communication Annexure A-6 was sent to pocieties. On receMng this, the very next day, the Additional Registrar, Co-cjperative Societies vide order dated 23-4- 2002 (Annexure A-7) appointed on4 49 of the Act, 1960. Therefore, th^ pass the impugned order, tience, V^i the respondents have failed to tak^ order of appointmeni of the Eiectio( held bv the Election Officer whd Registrar. A resotution was passed| »nd Registrar on 2'" May, 2002 vide Anj Nagarlk Sahkari Bank Limited madj Officer, vide order daied 1-5-2002 operative Societies to issue suitable <»ii<<i<-i41-t tiiiciT ^' te^ ^sil^trsTi^r Umesh Tiwari, Assisiant Regisn'ar, Durg, as Election Officer, in view of the s^cond proviso to sub-section (8) of Section Additional Registrar had no jurisdiction to e aforesaid order is without |urisdiction, as action within the stipulated period of 90 days. However, the Board of Direjrtors of the Bank agreed to the aforesaid officer and decided that the eiections be has been appointed by the Additional and the same was intimated to the Deputy lexure A-8. Thereafter, the h4anager of the a request to Umesh Twan, the Election (Annexure A-9) to hold elections of the Society. However, no action was ^aken and vide communication dated 3-5- 2002 (Annexure A-10), a request vjras made to the Additional Registrar, Co- directions to the Electksn Offwer to hoid the 'lections. In the mean time, formalities for elections were completed, and even the final voters list was prepared af(er compietlon of the formalities. However, XI-HC-22 3^ '^WM't, OTfly'Ko, fslt-lltiy <^l^ch,^_ ^l,,.^ (j 5p. | ^3,-r; /o •i 14^-5^2- o^i^^ i "1 ^^/°4- W^TfKW'" """"""""" V^ -2< f^% 3773?T^ R^STI^T 3-^!=f- 311S<1 6'(-dlWBl?(T "3 thb the electi<)ns to utter surprise of the petition^r (Annexure A-11) was came to be on the ground that the Society has hoid eiections of the Society before the impugned order be quashed, of Directors be allowed to continue) Officer may be directed to hold takingsteps for holding the election programme (Annexure A-1; 25.10.2002 and expiring on 8-12-; Chairman and ottier representaiivesj sudden, Uie Eiection Officer stayed| 2002 (Annexure A-15). Retum has been filed on raised that the Reglstrar, Co-opsraf days from the date of expiry of five Deputy Registrar not to the Registra( Mr. P. Disvaker, tearned petitioners argued that in view of every steps was taken by the Boar^! of sub-section (7-A) and (8) of in order to ensure that elections Officer appointed by the Registrar. the reasons best known to him, election process, to the utter process. As there was no defautt Board is entitted to continue, tili ine 41 the impugned order dated 12-8-2002 p^ssed, whereby the Society was superseded failed to make request to the Registrar to |90 days. Therefore, it has been prayed that petl'tioner and other members of the Board till the elections are held, and Uie Election elections. The Election Officer started and the votere list was finaiized. The $) was issued on 25-10-2002, starting from ?002, the day when the Chairman & Vice- of the Board were to be elected, but ail of a |the eiection process vide order dated 9-11- Sectifcin <kl<<f<~1'41-l ^|t(i-lT^'fSc3'<l«<^K ^srf^crsii^i be!|ialf of the respondents in which a polnt was tive Societies was not requested before 90 years term, as the request was made to the Selnior Advocate appearing on behalf of the |the facte mentioned in these writ petition, of Directors to compiy with the provisions 49 of the Act, 1960. Even the petitioners ire held peacefully, accepted the Election But, unfortunateiy, the Election OfFicer, for completing elections, in the midst ofthe of every one, stopped the election on the part of the petitioners, the outgoing lections are heid. witHout sunpnse XI-HC-22 3^T '<<l'i<lo1<<, WTfl^'16, Rli'fiuy 3llfi^l4ach , ,, / LD.^P . (•2_-^'0 /°^, ^ '+-4-^/0^ '^<A | ^(3^ /•0 <y- ITTOWgTtTra?"""""""""'"" ^ 2ft0- f^s' (32 3fT^r?n' 'sn^r OTitRfffer 3n^r graTw: gf?tT -6 »hi;-ifd-lfl-itii*«-iT^'tecS<l'sfl^;i< ^3lRTIT3II^T Yastlwant R^gis Btard On the other hand, Mr. appearing on behalf of the State/) Koshy, learned counsel appearing petitioners never requested the sub-section (8) of Section 49 of th< order to hold elections. The reque^t same was not in conformity with elections could not be held, and| remedy, but to supersede the Additional Reflistrar is strictly in Section 49 or'the Act, 1960. Having heard leamed coun^e and retevant provisions. Sub-sectton (7-A) of Sectioiji term of the commsttee shall be ffve (fte committee is hekf. Thereaft^r, section (7-AA) that the period can| case, no oeriod was extended. 1960 envisages that "it shall be society to hold etections prior to th^ A) or extended term under sub-se<; apply to the Registrar for holding ^t not be in any case less than nin^y committee". First proviso to the committee the Registrar fails assume charge of the committee cohtinue to hcid the offices. Secorjd t^want Singh Thakur, leamed Govt. Advocate /(•espondents No.1 to 3 & 6, and Mr. P.S. ^n behalf of respondent N6.4 argued that the ^gistrar, Co-operative Societies, in terms of Act, 1960, to appoint the Election Officer in was made to the Deputy Registrar and the fhe provisions of the Act, 1960. As such, the Registrar was left with no atternative Therefore, the action taken by tiie with clause (iQ of sub-section (8) of consonance ®1for frie parties, 1 have perused the record ^ub- sub-sefction fe 49 of ttie Act, 1960, envisages that "ff» ^ears form the date on whksh ffist meetsng of r, a provision has been made under sub- be extended upto 36 months. But, in this ^ub-section (8) (i) of Section 49 of the Act, cjbligatoiy on the outgoing committee of the expiration of the term under sub-section (7- ^tion (7-AA). The outgoing committee shall tection within a reasonabte time which shaii days before expiration of the tenn of the (8) (1) provides that if on the request of conduct elections, the Registrar shall not and the membera of the committee shal! proviso to sufci-secfion (8) (i) provid " fhat XI-HC-22 3 3^ •^ww-f, »Tfl'M<i6, [s(cti«y 3T^r^w_ u .v, (2-^-o/°^[^si'D'i.wui^ n <>^^f- ^1<4MI*<.11* •••-••••••••••••••••• g^ ^^- Ri*«& .iTTCT^T K-Ti'fisn^T aTRI^BRt STI^T STtTRiR: flf?cT "'Y ihe Registrar fe/te to conduct e^cffons of e commtttee wiffiin ninety days from the date of expjry of tte terfti of the committee, the committee of tfte soc/efy shall appoint retuming ofRper who shall conduct the etecSon af the committee within 180 days from ft^ date of Sne expiry of fce femr'. Clause (ii) of sub-section (8) of Section 49 of |the Act, 1960, further envisages that "if the committee faits te hold etecVon ^nd has naf handed over the charge on expiraSon af ttw term, undw sub-^ectton C7-A) or extended term uncter sub- secSon {7-ftA} to fte Registrar or ai^y oflfcer authorized by him on his behalf, all the members ofthe committee shah 1 dated 11-1-2002 that ttie Board Limited took a decision that since 2002, therefore, a request be sent| appointment of Election Officer. lr< resolution to the Deputy Registrar ^ the said resolution on 17-1-2002 to| was taken that since the Registra| therefore, Mukesh Ranwani is appc) this information, Additional Registraj (Administration) Durg; as Election *i<it<i4)-i tiiH<iTffte^'<Ri<^i< ^isrf^iTsn^T be deemed to have vacated tfieir seats and the Registrar shail assume charge ^nd hokl etecfon as eaiiy as possibte". in view of the above provisiohs of Section 49 of the Act, 1960, if we iook into the documents filed by the petifoners herein, it is evident from Annexure A- of Directore of the Nagarik Sahkari Bank ]the term ofthe Board is expiring on 12-4- |to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies for pursuance of that, the Chairman sent the nd the Deputy Regish'ar, in tijrn, forwarded the Registrar. A reminder was sent by the Chairman on 9-4-2002, but the sapie evoked no response, therefore, on 2C^ April, 2002, the Board of Director a^ain met and in agenda rtem No.9 a decision 2002, appointed Umesh Tiwari, 4ssistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies has not appointed any Etection Officer, nted as the Election OfRcer. On receiving P.R- Naik vide his order dated 23rd April, pfficer (Returning Officer). Even the same was ac-cepted by the petitionere B^ik vide rts resoiution dated 20 April, 2002 and in pursuance of that Umesh Tjwari started the slecUun process, the list of XI-HC-22 3^ ^WM^, »-rf1t1'l6, Rfll^^l. 11^1 ^^Ct), ^l LLJV^.['^3fD/V-^,~l'^^/0'^'OM^. n'3^,[0^- ^I^WI Sh*4|ch ••••••••••••••••••••• ^j- .SW-. Rt'b^ siwr^r Ic^RiSTRST sOTI^gf^ sn^i ^FaTwflfN voters was finalized and the part of this order was issued on with 8-12-2002 when the Chairmah, Board were to be elected. Howe^er said election process was stayed 2002. Now, coming to the respondents ftat since the request] was made to the Deputy Registrar| consonance with the provisions of 1960, I do not find any substanc^ evident from the resolution dated decided to make a request to conducting elections as per the ihe Act, 1960. It is true that the to the Deputy Registrar on 12-1-2(] Deputy Registrar on 14-1-2002, same on 17-1-2002 to the R8gisti)ar. took time, but the same cannot be section (8) of Section 49 of the Ac(, Shat "the oufgolng committee shalf within a reasonable time whksh betore expiration of the tenn of tfye took a decision 80 days before thej (8) envisages that 'if fhe outgoing\ Registrar to hokt election at !east rVi failed to conduct elections on its electfon programme as mentioned in Vhe earlier 215-10-2002 starting from 25-10-2002 ending i, Vice-Chairman and other members of the r, in the midst of the election process, the fc|y frie Election Officer vide order dated 8-11- argun^ent frdm qTOfe^ KIIRff ^'feli)-rfSfRR ^Slf^TT 311^1 advanced by leamed counsel for the |was not made to the Registrar directly and it therefore, same could not be conskiered in sub-section (8) of Section 49 of the Act, in this argument for the reason that it is 111-1-2002 (Annexure A-1) by which it was |the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, for pijovisions of sub-section (8) of Sectton 48 of cojnmunication ofthe said resolution was made 302, which was received in the Office of the where the Deputy Registrar forwarded the This is the internal arrangement, which sonsidered contrary to the provisions of sub- 1960. Sub-section (8) in cfear terms says apply to the Registrar for holding electton not be in any case tess (ftan ninety days commiitee". Accordingly, the Committee expiry of their term. Proviso to sub-section \committee has resolved and wquested ttw inety days in advance and fte Registrarhas re^Liest, the Registrar shall not assume charge stiall refiuest, XI-HC-22 '3^ "yi^irt^, tSnfly'Ko, feirtiyy, LO<:P. iz^o^o-^ f^^-^/is'^tvM^ n^^^:"^- *ll*lMl sh*<lcft ••••••••••••••••••••• ^j- 2< fa^s 31T??T^iT 'arr^r ^wgfer 3[1^T g^HTW Hf?tT -c\ Se<ltion of the committee and the membef^ office". The resolution was pass< therefore, the action of the petitionet' provisions of sub-section (8) of proviso to sub-section (8), if the committee wrthin ninety days on th^ the committee of the society shall| the election of the committee withirt term. The committee appointed coming to know about the same, th|e the next day. The committee even took stfei of Section 49 of the Act, 1960, but only this, when the committee was not allowed t>y the Registrar| 1 taken by him, the Regisfrar unlawfijlty view of the iegal provisions and that the order impugned dated 12-^- factsand same is liable to be 12-6-2002 isquashed. Ncw, coming to the other Board of Directors may be allowed not entiUed for the reason that as Section 49 of the Act, 1960, the within 180 days. Therefore, at thej beyond the date of expiry of its tem(). (ii) of sub-section (8) of Section started tii<<i<-i41-i 11*11-11 tf fgti)' ^;3[^T3T1^T of the committee shall continue to hold ffie ^d 90 days prior to the expiry of the term, Society was cleariy in consonance with the 49 of ihe Act, 1960. As per the second |Registrar fails to conduct elections of the date of expiry of tfie term of the committee, appoint retuming officer who shall conduct 180 days from the date of the expiry of tfie Ithe Election Officer on 20-4-2002. After th|e Registrar appointed the Election OfRcer on t^ps as per the provisions of sub-section (8) fhe Registrar faited to conduct elections. Not starfed taking action to hold elections, even that 1 and taldng advantage of the wrong action superseded the committee. Therefore, in fa4tual aspects of the case, 1 am of the opinion -2002 has been passed based on the wrong quasfied. Accordingty, the impugned order dated pr^yer made by the petitloners that the original to continue, for this relief, the petitioners are )er the second proviso to sub-section (8) of officer is bound to conduct elections most, the Board can continue for 180 days i. Thereafter, under the provisions of cfause 149 of the Act, 1960, under the deeming re]tuming XI-HC-22 3^ •-fWMf, ttlflti'KS, (d.flltiy ^^(^TO^/—4 l^w^ IIIMI shllth ••••••••••••••••••••• jc^ _3^) Ri^ ^' W^T^iT is-ii+sn^r g^FSHfgcT Soma/- 3Ti^T?^treR(rftcr - 10 retirertient provision, the Board has vacated th| will not be appropriate to direct the K Since the Election Officer that the electkin process atso and the eiection programme was a| the Registrar, Co-operative Societie^ the elections are conducted at the service, then he be allowed to cont not available on account of Election Officer be appointed and ^ where the elsction was stayed i.e.| already finalized by the Election elections be re-issued and electionsl period of flve months from today. With the observations and d| stand disposed of. In view of this order, ail the Parties are entitied for certifie<ll W&S comtnenced *i<il<-i''fl-i iitinTffte'^'A^K ^srf^Hsn^T ^ seat, therefore, almost after three yeare, it ^spondents to allow the Board to continue. already appointed and in pursuance of I, the votere list was also prepared, Iso issued, therefore, in the circumstances, ^ respondent No.1 is directed to ensure that sarliest. !f the same Retuming Officer is in Inue with the election process, and if he is or for any other reason, then a new ^e should conduct electtons from the stage based on the same voters list which was lOfRcer. However, the time schedute of I should be completed by all means within a irections aforesaid, the above writ petitlons pe^iding apptications also stand disposed of. copy ofthis order. ———- —— Sd/- LC.Bhadoo .' ~ Judge ¥^Aci ^v^nF -^°. (<Tls?t®q')