CWP No. 11218 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 11218 of 2011 Date of decision: 8.7.2011 Surjit Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Mr.M.S.Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** SABINA, J. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the election notice dated 14.6.2011 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 1.6.2011 (Annexure P-3). Case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they were members of the Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Banks ( the PADB in short) Nawanshahar, Jagraon, Raikot, Khanna CWP No. 11218 of 2011 2 and Balachaur. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank (in short the Apex Bank) is managed by the elected Board of Directors. For the election of Board of Directors of the Apex Bank, the State of Punjab had been divided in 17 zones. A notice dated 14.5.2011 (Annexure P-1) was duly issued in this regard. There was no contiguity in the proposed zones. Respondent No.1 filed objections that no managing committee was functioning in 9 PADBs i.e. Hoshiarpur, Balachaur, Jaitton, Jagraon, Kapurthala, Raikot, Khanna, Abohar and Nawanshahar. In the absence of the managing committee, it would be discretion of the Administrator to nominate any of the members of the PADBs, which was not the true spirit of democracy. As per Section 26 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (the Act for short), the tenure of a managing committee of a cooperative society is five years. In case no fresh committee is constituted then an Administrator can be appointed for a maximum period of six months in the case of a primary society. The objections raised by respondent No. 1 were, however, rejected by respondent No.2 and an election notice has been published on 14.6.2011 in the newspaper. Hence, the petitioners are approaching this Court before the start of election process. Respondents No.1 and 2, in their written statement, have averred that the writ petition was not maintainable as alternate remedy was available to the petitioners to challenge the election by filing an election process. The Administrator appointed under Section 27 of the Act enjoined all the powers and duties of the managing committee. The Administrator could send any member of the society as a representative of the PADB to participate in the election CWP No. 11218 of 2011 3 of the Apex Bank. The petitioners were not competent to challenge the election of the Apex Bank in their individual capacity as they were not the members of the Apex Bank. Respondent No.3, in its written statement, has also taken up similar pleas as those taken by respondents No.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in many of these PADBs, there was no managing committee and the Administrator was managing the affairs of the same. In the absence of the managing committee, it was not desirable for the Administrator to nominate a member of PADB for election of the members of the Board of Directors of the Apex Bank. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala vs. T.A.Kuttappan and others JT 2000 (6) SC 458, wherein in para 7 it was held as under:- "If we carefully analyse the provisions of the Act, it would be clear that the administrator or a Committee appointed while the Committee of Management of the Society is under supersession cannot have the power to enrol new members and such a question ought not to be decided merely by indulging in an exercise on semantics in ascertaining the meaning of the expression have "power to exercise all or any of the function." Whether an authority is discharging a function or exercising a power will have to be ascertained with reference to the nature of the CWP No. 11218 of 2011 4 function or the power discharged or exercised in the background of the enactment. Often we do express that functions are discharged or powers exercised or vice versa depending upon the context of the duty or power enjoined under the law if the two expressions are inter-changeable. What is necessary to bear in mind is that nature of function or power exercised and not the manner in which it is done. Indeed this Court, while considering the provisions of Section 30-A of the Karnataka Act, which enabled a Special Officer appointed to exercise and perform all the powers and functions of the Committee of Management or any officer of the Cooperative Society (and not merely functions), took the view that the administrator or a special officer can exercise powers and functions only as may be required in the interests of the Cooperative Society. In that context, it was stated that he should conduct elections as enjoined under law, that is, he is to conduct elections with the members as on the rolls and by necessary implication, he is not vested with power to enrol new members of the society. We may add that a Cooperative Society is expected to function in a democratic manner through an elected Committee of Management and that CWP No. 11218 of 2011 5 Committee of Management is empowered to enrol new members. Enrolment of new members would involve alteration of the composition of the society itself and such a power should be exercised by an elected Committee rather than by an administrator or a Committee appointed by the Registrar while the Committee of Management is under supersession. This Court has taken the view, it did, bearing in mind these aspects, though not spelt out in the course of the judgment. Even where the language of Section 30- A of the Karnataka Act empowered a special officer to exercise and perform all the powers and functions of Committee of Management of a Cooperative Society fell for consideration, this Court having expressed that view, we do not think, there is anyneed to explore the difference in the meaning of the expressions "have power to exercise all or any of the functions of the Committee" in the Act and "exercise all or any of the functions of the Committee" in the Karnataka Act as they are not different and are in substance one and the same and difference in language will assume no importance. What is of significance is that when the Committee of Management of the Cooperative Society commits any default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed CWP No. 11218 of 2011 6 under the Acts, rules and the bye-laws, which is prejudicial to the interest of the society, the same is superseded and an administrator or a Committee is imposed thereon. The duty of such a Committee or an administrator is to set right the default, if any, and to enable the society to carry on its functions as enjoined by law. Thus, therole of an administrator or a Committee appointed by the Registrar while the Committee of Management is under supersession, is, as pointed out by this Court, only to bring on an even keel a ship which was in doldrums. If that is the objective and is borne in mind, the interpretation of these provisions will not be difficult." Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the Administrator could not enroll new members but the Administrator had the power to exercise all or any of the function of the managing committee. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Section 27 (3) of the Act reads as under:- “ The administrator so appointed shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may from time to time give, have powers two perform all or any of the functions of the committee or of any Officer of the society and take all such CWP No. 11218 of 2011 7 actions as may be required in the interest of the society.” Thus, as per the above provision, the Administrator so appointed shall have the power to perform all or any of the functions of the committee. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no dispute qua the legal proposition that the Administrator is not competent to enroll new members but is entitled to carry on the functions of the committee as enjoined by law. The managing committee could send the names of the members to contest the elections of the Apex Bank and the said functions can be very well carried out by the Administrator. For sending the names of members for elections of the Apex Bank, the meeting of the general body is not required to be held. Hence, there is no force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 08, 2011 anita