Civil Writ Petition No. 15648 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 15648 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.7.2010 Vijay Kumar and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. I.S. Saggu, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. S.S.Bhinder, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 8 to 16. Ms.Indu, Advocate for Mr. Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6. Mr.Harpreet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.7. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari restraining respondents No.8 to 16 to act as members of the Managing Committee of Kesar Singh Wala Co- operative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Kesar Singh Wala, District Bathinda, on the ground that the alleged election was sham especially when the Returning Officer, vide communication dated 29.9.2009 (Annexure P2), had postponed the holding of the election for want of quorum of the members. The said communication is reproduced Civil Writ Petition No. 15648 of 2009 2 below:- “To Returning-cum-Presiding Officer, Koir Singh Wala C.A.S.S. Subject: Regarding cancellation of election. Sir, It is submitted here that today on 29.09.2009 I being the Returning-cum-Presiding Officer went to the Kesar Singh Wala Society for holding the election. The election of the society is postponed for want of quorum of the members. Sd/- Harjinder Singh Dated: 29.09.09 Returning-cum-Presiding Officer C.A.S.S. Koir Singh Wala” The Returning Officer is also impleaded in the present writ petition by name as respondent No.5, who, in para 5 of his written statement, has specifically averred as under:- “5. That para 5 of the petition are admitted as correct to the extent that petitioner marked their presence in the proceeding book. Rest of the para of the writ petition is wrong hence vehemently denied. The quorum of the society was complete. Out of 383 total members 111 members were present and in token of their presence had signed the proceeding book. The election was conducted as per the scheduled programme. Answering respondent did Civil Writ Petition No. 15648 of 2009 3 not cancelled the election and same was held as per election programme. It is pertinent to mention here that Annexure P2 is the result of threat to life of the answering respondent. Real fact is that after the election when answering respondents were returning they were way laid by the armed person who came on two motor cycles and under threat to life of the answering respondents got written on plain paper from respondent No.5 and this incident was narrated to the incharge police post Bhaga and DDR to that effect was also recorded. The respondent No.5 did not postpone or cancelled the election. The election was duly held in accordance with law quorum was complete. There was no occasion to postpone the election”. Now it is a disputed question of fact as to whether the meeting was postponed or not, as respondent No.5 has taken a specific stand, in his written statement, that he conducted the proceedings of the election. He further stated that when he was returning, after the election, he was way laid by the armed persons who procured a writing under threat and coercion (Annexure P2). It is admitted that the petitioners have got an alternative remedy. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rampura Phool, in his short reply, by way of an affidavit, stated that there is special provision under Rule 12(2) of the Punjab Co-operative Agriculture Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “1963 Rules”) that in case of any dispute, in connection with the Civil Writ Petition No. 15648 of 2009 4 election of any officer of Co-operative Society, the same can be referred to the Registrar, within a period of 90 days of the declaration of the result, as provided in Rule 51 of the 1963 Rules. It is stated that since the petitioners have got an alternative remedy, the present writ petition be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioners may be relegated to avail the alternative effective remedy. The serious allegations have been levelled by the Returning Officer to the extent that they acted as criminals. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently denied the assertions made by the Returning Officer in paragraphs No. 5, 6 and 7 of his written statement. There being disputed questions of fact, the parties have to lead evidence. The writ Court cannot determine the disputed questions of fact. Therefore, once an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, the parties will be at liberty to adduce evidence for determination of the truth. Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of with an observation that in case the petitioners avail an alternative remedy, within a period of 30 days from today, the Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies, exercising the powers of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, shall decide the election petition within a period of 30 days, thereafter. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 27, 2010 “DK”