IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 4369 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 20, 2009 GURTEJ SINGH ETC. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 16.4.2007 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ferozepur, whereby the appeal filed by respondents No.5 to 9 against order dated 28.6.2006 (Annexure P-3) has been allowed and order (Annexure P-3) has been set aside. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P-4), a revision was preferred by the petitioners under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), Civil Writ Petition No. 4369 of 2009 2 which has been dismissed vide the other impugned order dated 20.1.2009 (Annexure P-6). The facts, as pleaded on behalf of the petitioners, are that the elections for constituting Managing Committee of Gobindgarh Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Gobindgarh, were held on 23.9.2005. The petitioners were elected. Nomination forms of respondents No.5 to 9 were rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of nomination papers, respondents No.5 to 9 preferred a petition under Sections 55/56 of the Act. The petition was contested by the petitioners. Respondent No.4 i.e. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Faridkot, vide order dated 28.6.2006 (Annexure P-3) rejected the plea of respondents No.5 to 9 and upheld the election held on 23.9.2005. Aggrieved by order (Annexure P-3), respondents No.5 to 9 preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ferozpur (respondent No.3). It has been pleaded that respondent No.3, under political pressure, accepted the appeal vide impugned order (Annexure P-4). The petitioners preferred a revision petition under Section 69 of the Act, which has been dismissed vide the other impugned order (Annexure P-6). Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that it is without reference to the record that the appeal filed by respondents No.5 to 9 has been allowed and, therefore, the order (Annexure P-4) is not sustainable in law. It has been argued that the order (Annexure P-3), passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, is a speaking order and was not required to be interfered with. The relevant grounds were not Civil Writ Petition No. 4369 of 2009 3 pleaded before the authorities and yet they have been taken into account while deciding the case in favour of respondents No.5 to 9. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and have gone through the petition. A perusal of Annexure P-1 i.e. grounds taken by respondents No.5 to 9 while filing their petition under Sections 55/56 of the Act, indicates that the election of the petitioners was challenged while pleading that the same was illegal. In para-8 thereof, it has specifically been pleaded that respondents No.5 to 9 herein (applicants before the Deputy Registrar) fulfilled all the conditions to contest the election. They were neither defaulters nor their candidature suffered from any impediment and they could not have been debarred from contesting the election. The time for scrutiny had already expired when their nomination papers had been rejected. A group of 9 persons, who were favoured by the Returning Officer, were maintained as candidates and the nomination papers of all other candidates had been rejected. The Returning Officer was specifically asked as to the grounds of rejection of nomination papers on the plea that clerical error or over-writing in the nomination papers could be corrected but the Returning Officer did not give out any reason for rejection of nomination papers. While dealing with the issue, the contention on behalf of respondents No.5 to 9 to the effect that the Returning Officer had himself made over-writing and additions in the nomination papers and, thereafter, the nomination papers had been rejected, has been noticed. In the Proceedings Book, nothing has been recorded as to why nomination Civil Writ Petition No. 4369 of 2009 4 papers had been rejected. I find that in order (Annexure P-3), the issues raised have not been discussed and the record has not been referred to. All that has been stated with regard to the issue raised that the Returning Officer had himself made over-writing and additions in the nomination papers, is that no proof had been produced. Be that as it may, on an appeal having been filed by respondents No.5 to 9, the appellate authority has considered the issue in the following terms:- “After hearing arguments of both the counsels for the parties and after perusing the record of the Society, Bank and record produced by the office of Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Faridkot, during the hearing of the case I have come to conclusion that at the time of the election of the Managing Committee of the Society, none of them was defaulter of the Bank or Society as per the record of the bank and Society and all of them have been taking and paying loan and have been active members and they have right to contest the election. The Returning Officer has cancelled the nomination papers of all of them because of the reason of writing wrong account numbers, which is not justified because the account numbers of one or two persons could be wrongly mentioned but the account number of all the appellants could not be wrongly mentioned on the nomination papers, because it is not possible that none of them knew the account number. After inspection of the original nomination papers it is found that the figures have been added in front of or on the backside of the membership numbers and after crossing the same, the nomination papers have been Civil Writ Petition No. 4369 of 2009 5 rejected on the ground of mentioning of wrong membership numbers. In this respect no member has filed any objection. Apart from this, the Returning Officer while cancelling the nomination papers has not mentioned any reasons and has written only the word cancelled. In this way the Returning Officer has cancelled the nomination papers of the appellants wrongly and has debarred them from taking part in the election without any reason. .......” The findings, thus, recorded in order (Annexure P-4) have been upheld in revisional jurisdiction by respondent No.1 vide order (Annexure P-6). It has been recorded in the order (Annexure P-6) that the Returning Officer did not assign any reason while rejecting the nomination papers whereas the Returning Officer was duty bound to assign reasons while rejecting the nomination papers. The order passed by the Joint Registrar in appeal, is after examining the record. It is a finding of fact that the nomination papers had been rejected illegally. The Deputy Registrar has been directed to conduct elections according to the rules. The impugned orders (Annexures P-4 and P-6) are reasoned orders and have been passed after referring to the record while the order (Annexure P-3) has been passed without reference to the original record. No material has been placed on record of this case to indicate that the evidence or material has been perversely read or that the material was irrelevant, while dealing with the issue in orders (Annexures P-4 and P-6). Learned counsel for the petitioners has further not been able to point out any material to show that respondents No.5 to 9 were defaulters and, therefore, were not eligible to contest the election. In writ Civil Writ Petition No. 4369 of 2009 6 jurisdiction, the decision itself cannot be challenged unless it is reflected that the same is patently perverse, inequitable and against the record. Error in the decision making process has not been pointed out and, therefore, judicial review of the impugned orders is not called for. No interference in writ jurisdiction, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is called for. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. March 20, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE