Lk Q? 1w IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.N0. W L13 /2002 Sohinder Singh Gurudutta S/o Jaswant Singh Gurudutta, aged about 55 ysars) R/o Near Aakash Gas Servic€ Paras Nagar, Devendra Nagar, Raipur » (C.G.) Petitioner Versus \‘K‘ . . . ’ . §\¢ The Reg1strar, Co-operatlve Socleues, Ra1pux (C.G.) Respondents f’! 7 V The Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societiss, Krashak Nagar, Labhemdi, Raipm — (C.G.) \ The Dy‘Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur — (C.G.) ’ 'Shn' K.L.Dhargave, Dy.Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Krashak Nagar, Labhandi, Raipur — (C,G.) Shri Umesh Tiwan', Assistant Registrar, (Election Officer), Durg ~ (C,G.) State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Co— operative, Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur— (CE-9" ‘tt WRIT PETITION U/A 226 / 27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ; XI-HC-22 LOP. \230 g2, (495;;MmgéfpgL W‘ m . .. m W ‘ mm§mm $Wm' -3n%¥rmai%a 10-8-2005 Mr. P. Diwaker, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal DasfAdvocate for the petitioners. Mr. Yashwant Singh Thaku', Govt Advocate for the Sate/responden$ No.1 to 3 and 6. Mr. P.S. Koshy, Advocate for rapondent No.4. Mr. B.D. Guru, Advm ilor interveners in W.P.Nos.1230/2002 and 1445l2002. Heard. Writ Petition Nos.1230i20012, 1445/2002 and 19363004 ,rei te to the same issue, therefore, they are bei ‘ disposed of by this common orde . I.A.Nos.7790!2002 and 37 2004. l.A.No.7790/2002 hasgbeer med on behalf of respondent No.4, the Authorized Officer. for claritication/moditication of the order dated 5-7-2002. it is stated in the appiication that vide order dated 5-7~2002, as an interim measure, this {Court directed resooiidént No.4 not to’enroii any new member to the Socieiyj Respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.5 as the Eiection Ofhcer and the said Election Officer in the meanwhiie issued notices and caiied for the membership list from the Eiank. The Bank authorities submitted a list wherein the names of persons who had recentiy aBplied for membership are not reflected. On 8-11-2002, the peorgle who are seeking fresh membership tiled objections before the Election Officer stating that the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, enumerates that any—person who applied for membership and who does not suitor from any disqualifmtion shall be deemed to be members of the said Society from the date they have applied for membership. \ Therefore, in such circum noes, there is no question of considering the applications oftthose 701 ‘person who have not deposited the membership Vfees. Apart from that, leamed Se ior Advocate for the petitioners argued that even the objection regarding r ‘stering those persons as members in the Society was already withdrawn and an application was moved to this effect. {t'is submmed thaf before 5-7-2002, more than 700 new persons have appiied fov membership in the Society and they have not been granted membership on account of the inter m reiiéf granted by this Court. Along with the submissione made on behaif of respondents No.1 to 3 and 6 in W.P.No.1445l2002 a "st of 703 persons who have applied for membership in the Society has bee annexed. Learned Govt. Advocate bmiis that out of 703 persons, only two persons have deposited the mem rship fees and remaining 701 persons have not deposited the membership fees ‘ i As far as lA.No.375I2W tiled on behalf of the petitioner for brining subsequent events on recordsand issuance of directions to the respondents, is concerned; in view of the fact mat out of 703 persons, 701 persons have not depositedithe membership fees and even the objection raised by 12 persons was withdrawn before the Election Officer, therefore, there is no substance in the appilcation, lA.No.7790/2002. The said application ls accordingly. rejected. However. for the remaining two persons who have already deposited the membership fees, the Authorized Officer is entitled to decide the issue regarding their membership, in accordance with law, after hearing them and the petitioners. 33W,m,‘W n w.?, \zgo 0‘1, (zf’érg/ommzLQ (936%w mm. . ................. 1H 7m . mmw K M mm wm Writ Petition Nos.1 23012 44512002 and 193612004 00 1 8y Writ Petition Nos.1230 002 and 1445l2002, the petitioners have questioned the legaiity, propn'ety a d correctness of the order dated 12-64002 (Annexure‘A-1 1) passed by the dditiona! Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur, whereby the Additional gistrar while exercising the power under clause Gr) of sub-section (8) of on 4970f the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter r erred to as ‘me Act, 1960‘), superseded the Society i.e. Nagarik Sahkari B nk Limited, Raipur, and appointed K.L. Dhargaye, Deputy Registrar, Co-o rative Societies. as the Authorized Omen, Whereas E W.P.No.193612004, it, as been prayed to set aside the order dated 9-1 1-2002, whereby the Eiection cer had stayed the election process of die said Society. Brief facts leading to hling of these writ petitions, as set out in W.P. No.1230/2002. are mat election of the~Co«operative Sodety i.e. Nagarik Sahkari Bank Limited were held in e year 1997 and hrst meeting of the newly elected Committee was held on 2-4-1997. As per the provisions of sub- section (7-A) of Section 49 of the "1’980,’the term of the Commitee was up to 11-4-2002 lie. for hve years. the term of the said Commitee was to expire on 1144-2002, in the meet of the Board of Directors of the Committee held on 11-1 -2002, a resolution ( nexure A—1) was passed in which a decision was taken to request the Registra to hold the elections. Pursuant to the said resolution. the Director along with copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors submitted an appl n (Annexure A-2) in which a request was made to appoint the Election Ofti r. Thereupon, the Deputy Registrar vide communication dated 17-1-2002 Annexure A-3) requested he Registrar to appoint the Elech'on Ofhcer so at elech‘ons of the Society could be held. However, no action'was mken by the Regisear. The Directoragain made a e i i “ ’, s i i o XLHCQQ m- EW,W§,W mm w?.{2.3o(62/ (44S Olin/£51 17$§/O ¢ mm H3 zoo W XIVHCA22 EW,W,W (M? [2 o> I44J‘/DLO\MLQW$6/O+ Wm 1H m mm mm aEH%H g %a@q 311%3 t0 utter smprise of the petitioner the impugned order dated 12-&2002 (Annexure A—1 1) was came to be pa ssed, whereby the Society was superseded on the ground that the Society has failed to make request to the Registrar to hold elections of the Society before 9O days. Therefore, it has been prayed that the impugned order be quashed. the petitioner and other members of the Board of Directors be allowed to continue till the elections are held, and the Election Officer may be directed to hold the elections. The Election Ofhcer started taking steps for holding the elections and the voters list was finalized. The eiection programme (Annexure A-12)‘ was issued on 25-10-2002, starting from 25.10.2002 and expiring on 842-12002, the day when the Chairman & Vice- Chairman and other represen'mtives of the Board were to be elected, but aii of a sudden, the Election Officer stayed the election process vide order dated 9-1 ‘l- 2002 (An nexure A—1 5). Retum has been flied on be alf of the respondents in which a point was raised that the Registrar, Co-opera ive Societies was not requested before 90 days from the date of expiry of five ears term, as the request was ma'de to the Deputy Registrar not to the Registr . i a Mr. P. Diwaker. learned or Advocate appearing on behaif of the petitioners argued that in view of the facts mentioned in these writ petition. every steps was wken by the Boar of Directors to compiy with the provisions of sub-section (7-A) and (8) of Secti n 48 of the Act, 1960. Even the petitioners e held peacefully, accepted the Election But, unfortunately, the Election Ofhcer, for ut completing elections, in the midst ofthe eiection process, to the uder su rise of every one, stopped the election process. As mere was no default n the part of the petitioners, the outgng/W in order to ensure that elections Ofhcer appointed by the Registrar the reasons best known to him, S r . ‘ o i/ XI-HC-22 mm W . mm,m,m tum 1m a2 (445/0) wakmx/m mmmw ~€ WW§WW éVWm m behalf of respondent No.4 argued that the petitioners’never requested the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 49 of the order to hold elections. The reques same was not in conformity with eiections couid not be held, and remedy, but to supersede the B Additional Registrar is strictly in con Section 49 of the Act, 1%0. Having heard learned oouns and relevant provisions. Sub-section (7-A) of Sectior term of the committee shall be rive the committee is hela”. Thereafte section (7-AA) that the period can case. no period was extended. S 1960 envisages that “it shall be o society to hold elections prior to the A) or extended term under sub-5&1 apply to the Registrar for holding e not be in any' case less than nine committee". First proviso to sub. the committee the Registrar fails assume charge of the commidee and the members of the committee shall continue to hold the offices, $eco d proviso to sub-section (8) G) provides that On the ether hand, Mr. Yast [want Singh Thakur, ieamed Govt. Advocate appearing on behaif of the Stateirespondents No.1 to 3 & 6, and Mr. P5. Koshy. Seamed counsel appearing i Act, 1960, to appoint the Election Officer in n was made to'the Deputy Registrar and the xhe provisions of the Act, 1960. As such, the Registrar was left with no alternative yard. Therefore. the action eken by the sonance with clause (ii) of sub-section (8) of el for the parties, l have perused the record i 49 of the Act. 1960, envisages mat “the rears form the date on which itrst meeting of 3r. a provision has been made under sub- be extended upto 38 months. But, in this ub-section (8) (i) of Section 49 of the Act, bligatory on the outgoing committee of the expiration of the term under sub-section (7- :tion (7-AA). The outgoing committee shall lection within a reasonable time which shall ty days before expiration of the ten'n of the ‘on (8) (I) provides that if on the request of conduct elections, the Registrar shall not XILHC-22 WW,W,W (U S?i (2f>© {32/ (445/b'LM \‘1Eé/v4. mm Hi w’ committee fails to hold election nd has not handed over the charge on expiration of the term, under sub 'on (7-A) or extended term under sub- section (7-AA) to the Regfstrar or a y emcer authorized by him on his behalf, all the members of the committee shai be deemed to have vacated their seats and the Registrar shalt assume charge nd hoid eiection as eaity as possible”. in View of the above provisio s of Section 49 of the Act, 1960, if we took into the documents med by the pe ‘ ‘oners herein, it is evident from Annexure A- 1 dated 11-1-2002 that the Board of Directors of the Nagarik Sahkari Bank Limited took a decision that since he term of the Board is expiring on 124- 2002, therefore, a request he sent to the Registran Cooperative Societies for appointment of Eiection Officer. pursuance of that, the Chairman sent the reeoiution to the Deputy Registrar nd the Deputy Registrar, in turn, forwarded the said resolution on 17-1-2002 to the Registrar. A reminder was sent by the Chairman on 9-4-2002, but the sa e evoked no response. therefore, on 20‘“ Aprii, 2002, the Board of Director a ain met and in agenda item No.9 a decision was taken that since the Regis has not appointed any Election Officer, therefore. Mukesh Ranwani is a nted as the Election Ofhcer. On receiving this information, Additional Registr r PR, Naik vide hisorder dated 23rd April, 2002, appointed Umesh Tiwari, sistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies cer (Returning Officer). Even the same was accepted by the petitioners B k vide its resolution dated 20m April, 2002 and in pursuance of that Umesh T ari started the election process, the list of (Administration) Durg, as Election @ - h i t r p i s i W m em WW mmw 7 W? um—évff ‘ fs‘zifW %srf%qan%w "if ihe Registrar fails to wnduct e tions of the committee within ninety days from the date of expiry of the of the committee, the commitlee of me society shall appoint retuming o er who shail conduct me election of the comrhlftee within 180 days from dale of the expily of the farm”. Clause (ii) of sub-section (8) of Section 49 of e Act. 1960. further envisages that “if the XI-HC—22 m (ASPALK 232} W4§w M W36é<k Wm EH M . W v ... 317331? Eg§H mmmggva ~ Q _r WWW '9ffg‘éTIPvW %ea%wsnéw voters was tinalized and the election programme as mentioned in the eariier V part of this order was issued on 25-10-2002 starting from 2540-2002 ending with 8-12-2002 when the Chairma1, Vice-Chairman and other members of the Beard were to be elected However, in the midst of ihe election process, the said election process was stayed hy the Election Omcer vide order dated 9-1 1- 2002. Now, coming to the argument advanced by leamed counsel for the responden$ that since the request was not made to the Registrar directly and it was made to the Deputy Registrar therefore. same coutd not be considered in sub-section (8) of Section 49 of the Act, in this argument for the reason that it is evident from the resolution dated 11-1-2002 (AnnexUre A—1) by which it was decided to make a request to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, for conducting elections as per the p visions of sub-section (8) of Section 49 of the Act, 1960. lt is true that the co muntcation of the said resolution was made to the Deputy Registrar on 12-1—2 02. which was received in the Office of the Deputy Registrar on 144-2002, fr m where the Deputy Registrar forwarded the same on 17-1—2002 to the Regi . This is the internal arrangement, which took time, but the same cannot be onsidered contrary to the provisions of sub- section (8) of Section 49 of the 1960. Sub-section (8) in clear terms says that “the outgoing committee she apply to the Registrar for holding ebciion within a reasonable time which s ii not be in any case less than ninety days before expiration of the rem: of committee". Accordingly, the Committee took a decision 90 days before th expiry of their term. Proviso to sub-section (8) envisages that “if the outgoing commitke has resolved and requested the Registrar to hoid election at least 'nety days in advance and one Registrar has failed m conduct elections on i1: consonance with the provisions 1960, i do not find any substa uest, the Registrar shall not assume charge ,r \ 1 n Li w W n s r A , HW,WIE7W (A i, i23@03 (445 “041% 11%Q/7WL mm W XI~HC~22 3113m$I WW §Ei$1f$a WMWW a of the commiitee and the memberf emce”. The resoiution was passe therefore, the action of the petitioner Society was ciearty in consonance with the tion 49 of the Act, 1960A As per the second Registrar fails to conduct elections of the e date of expiry of the term of the committee appoint returning officer who shall oonduot 180 days from the date of the expiry of the the Eiection omcer on 20-4-2002. After coming to know about the same, the Registrar appointed the Eiection Officer on the next day. The committee even took st of Section 49 of the Act, 1960, but l: only this, when the committee start was not allowed by the Registrar taken by him. the Registrar unlawfL View of the iegai provisions and fat that the order impugned dated 12—€ facts and same is liable to be quas 12-6-2002 is quashed. yer made by the petitioners that the original Now, coming to the other pr Board of Directors may be allOWed to continue. for this relief, the petitioners are not entitled for the reason that as er the second proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 49 of the Act, 1960, the r urning officer is bound to conduct elections within 180 days. Therefore, at th most, the Board can continue for 180 days beyond the date of expiry of its ter . 49 of the Act, 1960, under the deeming (ii) of sub—section (8) of Section WW&‘@W " 'éa‘mm of the commitiee shall continue tD hold the :d 90 days prior to the expiry of the term, provisions of sub-section (8) of Sec proviso to sub-section (8), if the committee within ninety days on the the committee of the society shaii the eiection of the committee withir term. The committee appointed aps as per the provisions of subsection (8) he Registrar failed to conduct elections. Not ed taking action to hold elections, even that and taking advantage of the wrong action illy superseded the committee. Therefore. in rtual aspects of the case. l am of the opinion ~2002 has been passed based on the wrong wed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated Thereafter, under the provisions of clause - i .ll XI—HC—22 WW a1 aw W mm mm 1“ “\WEW WWW * ‘D 'WWEWW $Wm provision, the Board has vacated th e seat, therefote. almost after three years, it Wm not be appropriate to direct the respondents ‘0 allow the Board to continue. Since the Election omcer was already appointed and in pursuance of that the élection process also commenced, the voters list was also prepared, and the election programme was also issued, therefore in the circumstances. the Registrar, Co‘operative Societies; respondent No.1 is directed to ensure that the elections are conducted at the i service, then he be allowed to cont not availabie on account of retiren Election Officer be appointed and he should conduct elections from the sage based on the same voters list which was Ohicer. However, the time schedule of should be completed by all means with period of five months from today. With the observations and d stand disposed of. in view ot this order! ail the pending applications aiso stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for certifie< if; 00 aariiest. if the same Returning Officer i5m inue with the election process, and if he is tent or for any other reason, then a new where the election was stayed i.e. aiready nnalized by the Election elections be re-issued and elections Somal- ma \" Sdl— \3 L.c.BHAD Judge w'gigOi'oz/ i9 QS'DLCM‘MQ (g3é/cwr rections aforesaid. the above writ petitions @ ‘i copy of this order.