Pemioner Smt. Rajensdra Kaur W/o Sardar Sohendra Singh, aged about 49 yeais, Devendra Nagar, Raipur — (CG’) Versus Respondents The Reg'strar, Co—operatiyé” ~ Societies? Raipmf (C.G.) /4% The Additional Registmf, Co~operaiiw -"‘ ' w Q) . V , J‘Q? .. :-.<-‘-:‘f;oil’t~‘9:. Societies, Krashak Nagal”, Labhandi, Raipur—(C.G.) The Dy.Registrar, Co-operativé Societies, Raipur~ (C.G.) Shn' KLDhaIgave, DyReg'stmr, Co- operative Societies, Krashak Nagar, Labhandj, Raipur — (C.G.) 3111i Umesh Tiwan', Assistant Reg'strar, (Election Of&cer), Dulg — (C.G.) /Svtate of Chhattisgarh through the Secretaiy Co—operative Depaltment, DKS Bhawan, Raipur—(C.G.) ‘ WRIT PETITION UIA 226 ! 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA L. 7*"Mma‘meAum‘n v‘ e we “1‘! ‘— Fi1.: XI-HC—ZZ EW,W,W ‘ W WP ‘f—Eag f§<I£fz§%&%$l§é “F- ' Mr. P. Diwaker, Semor Advo¢ate with Mr. Kunai Das, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 and 6. . W” Mr. P.S. Koshy, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate 1or interveners in W.P.Nos.1v230/2002 and 1445/2002. Heard. Writ Petition Nos.1230/20012, 1445/2002 and 1936/2004 relefe to the same issue, therefore, they are be disposed of by this common ordefr. i i.A.No.7790/2002 hast-:bee med on behalf of respondent No.4, the Authorized Officer, for clarincation/ oditication of the order dated 5-7-2002. > o 'it is stated in the application hat vide order dated 5-7-2002, as an interim measure, this Court directed respo dent No.4 not to enroii any new member to the Society. Respondent No.2 ppointed respondent No.5 as the Eiection Officer and the said Election Office in the meanwhiie issued notices and caiied for the membership list from the ank. The Bank authorities submitted a list wherein the names of persons who had recently applied for membership are not reflected. On 8-11-2002. the peo le who are seeking fresh membership fried objections before the Election Off stating that the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, enumerates t at anyperson who appiied for membership . and who does not suffer from a y disquaiihcation shail be deemed to be members of the said Society, from e date they have applied for membership. i .A.Nos.7790/2002 and 375 2004. .4, i r W matter Wants 'anatraenmnlsa mmdwm antea1%n ewmén ' 10-3-2905 XI—HC-22 HW,WW,W cox? ago iz ufzf3/i32 aw$ (73$ [o §L Wm ( W -W W W $qi$¥n WW§WW éamanw mmww Rzm it is submitted that before 5-7~2002, more than 700 new persons have applied for membership in the Society and they have not been granted membership on account of the inter m relief granted by this Court. Along with the submissions made on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and 6 in W.P.No.1445/2002 a st of 703 persons whoihgve applied for membership in the Society has bee annexed. Learned Govt. Advocate s bmits that out of 703 persons, only two persons have deposited the memb rship fees and remaining 701 persons have not deposited the membership fee Therefore, in such circums noes, there is no question of considering the applications of those 701 person who have not deposited the membership fees. Apart from that, learned Se ior Advocate for the petitioners argued that even the .obiection regarding tering those persons as members in” the Society was already withdrawn and an application was moved to this effect. As far as l.A.No.375/2004 flled on behalf of the petitioner for brining subsequent events on record and issuance of directions to the respondents, is concerned, in View of the fact tha out of 703 persons, 701 persons have not deposited the membership fees and even the objection raised by 12 persons was withdrawn before the Election Officer, therefore, there is no substance in the appilcation. l.A.No.7790l2002. The said application is accordingly. rejeoted. Howaver. for the remaining two persons who have already deposited the membership fees, the Authorize‘ld Officer is entitled to decide the issue regarding their membership. in acrtordance with law, after hearing them and the petitioners. l l Wisdom W %a s i r s XI-HC—22 EWW W mm %m‘$ai%a mm‘mw “E WW WW éawm 1 04 Writ Petition Nos.1 23OI20 By Writ Petmon Nos.1230l questioned the legaiity, propriety a (Annexure A—11) passed by the Raipur, whereby the Additional clause (u) of sub-section (8) of Societies Act 1960 (hereinafter r erred to as ‘the Act 1960) superseded the Socrety Le. Nagarrk Sahkarr B Dhargave. Deputy Registrar, Co- Whereas in W.P.No.1936/2004, it 9-1 1 -2002, whereby the Election said Society. Brief facts leading to tiling No.1230/2002. are that eiection Sahkari Bank Limited were heid in elected Commrttee was held on section (7-A) or Section 49 of the to 11-4-2002 i.e. for five years. 44512002 and 1936120 0‘ a 002 and 1445/2002, the petitioners have d correctness of the order dated 12-6-2002 dditionai Registrar, Co—cperative Societies, gistrar while exercising the power under tron 49 of the Chhattrsgarh Co-operatrve of these writ petitions, as set out in WP. of the Co—operative Society i.e. Nagarik he year 1997 and fret meeting of the newty 2-4-1997 As per the provrsions of sub- 1960 the term of the Committee was up As the term of the said Committee was to expire on 11-4-2002. in the meeti of the Board of Direetors of the Committee held on 11-1 -2002, a resolution (A was taken to request the Registrar resolution. the Director along with of Directors submitted an appiioati; made to appoint the Election Oftir communication dated 17-1-2002 appoint the Election Officer so tt However, no action was taken by nk Limited, Rarpur, and appornted K.L. ative Societies. as the Authorized Ofticer., as been prayed to set aside the order dated cer had stayed the election process of the nexure A-1) Was passed in which a decision to hold the elections. Pursuant to the said copy of the resolution passed by the Board on (Annexure A-2) in which a request was :er, Thereupon, the Deputy Registrar vide (Annexure A-3) requested the Registrar to at elections of the society could be held. the Registrar. The Director again made a e c o i r XI—HC-ZZ Wm 09$? (2%(152’ (#45/0’2‘Wl73é/6 $ WW W 200 a“ ’ request to the Additional Registrar, So-operativ/e Societies vide communication dated 9-4-2002 (Annexure A-4) to appoint the Election Omcer, but no Officer was appointed. Since the requesit of the $0ciety evoked no response to conduct the eiections of the Soc , as such, in pursuance of the second proviso to sub-section (8) of Sect 49 of the Act. 1960. the Society held a meeting of the Board of Directors o 20’“ Aprii. 2002 (Annexure Ae5) and in the said meeting the Board of Direct rs appointed the ElectiogyO-fficer namely Mukesh Ramwani, and accordingly, communication Annexure A-6 was sent to the Deputy Registrar. Cooperative ocieties. On receiving this, the very next day, the Additional Registrar, Co erative Societies vide order dated 23-4- 2002 (Annexure A-7) appointed on Umesh Tiwari, Assistant Registrar, Durg, as Election Ofhcer, in view of the ond proviso to sub—section (8) of Section 49 of the Act. 1960. Therefore, th Additional Registrar had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, hence, t e aforesaid order is without jurisdiction, as action within the stipulated period of 90 o the respondentsahave failed to ta days. However, the Board of Di order of appointment of the Eiecti heid by the Election Officer w has been appointed by the Additional Registrar. A resolution was passed and the same was intimated to the Deputy Registrar on 2"“ May, 2002 vide An exure A-8. Thereafter, the Manager of the Nagarik Sahkari Bank Limited mad a request to Umesh Tiwari, the Election Officer, vide order dated 1-5-200 (Annexure A-9) to hold elections of the Society. However, no action was \en and vide communication dated 3-5- 2002 (Annexure A-iO), a request rs of the Bank agreed to the aforesaid officer and decided that the elections be s made to the Additional Registrar, Co- operative Societies to issue suitabie directions to the Election Officer to hold the eiections. in the mean time, formalities for eiections were completed, and even the final voters list was prepared after compietion of the fonnalities. However, rf'hadi i i - p c r k h o k a m Ww/ mm WWifga mmmw #4 ,- WW§WW $Wm XI—HC—22 HW,W,W LL) ?‘ {2% 02/, (44575LmwQ (“1 36(4 9. WW' 7111—200 m w W 311% 1. awful; 111% WW§WW aamm Wmm - 5‘; the impugned order dated 12-62002 (Annexure A-1 1) was came to be p ssed, whereby the Society was superseded on the ground that the Society ha failed to make request to the Registrar to ‘noid eiections of the Society before D days. Therefore, it has been prayed that the impugned order be quashed! th petitioner and other members of the Board of Directors be aHowed to continue till the elections are held, anddhe Election Gfi'mer may be directed to hold t e elections. The Election Officer started taking steps for holding the electi ne and the voters list was finalized. The election programme (Annexure A—1 )was issued on 2540-2002, starting from 25.10.2002 and expiring on 8-12 02, the day when the Chairman & Vice- Chairman and other representative of the Board were to be eiected, but all of a sudden, the Election Ofiicer stayed the election procese vide order dated 9-1 1— 2002 (Annexure A—l 5). Return has been filed on be alf of the respondents in which a point was raised that the Registrar, Co-opera lve Societies was not requested before 80 , days from the date of expiry of five years term, as the request was made to the Deputy Registrar not to the Registr . Mr. P. Diwaker, learned or Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued that in View of the facts mentioned in these writ petition, every steps was taken by the Boar of Directors to comply with the provisions of sub-section (7-A) and (8) of Secti n 49 of the Act. 1960. Even the petitioners e held peacefully,‘accepted the Election But, unfortunately, the Election Officer, for the reasons best known to him. wit out completing elections. in the midst of'the election process, to the utter su prise of every one, stopped the election process. As there was no default n the part of the petitioners, the outgoing Board is entitled to continue, till the lections are heid. in order to ensure that elections Officer appointed by the Registrar. I - 0 a S i r WMW A L a XI—HC—22 Wm EW,W,W to.<> ¥ 4%:0 5aéJz‘férS/fgmwJkWge/t4 W m » W \“Jé/ WW WWWV ‘WW#WW $WW On the ether hand Mr Yas appearing onr behaif of ;he étate) ‘Koshy. learned counsel appearing " peiitioners never requested the R1 sub-section (8) of Section 49 of the order to hold elections. The requeet was made to'the Deputy’Registrar and the same was not in conformity with ' elections could not be held, and remedy. but to supersede the B Additienal Registrar is strictly in cor Section 49 of the Act, 1§60. Having heard learned couns and relevant provisions. a 49 of the Act, 1960., envisages that “the term of the committee shelf be live ears form the date on which lirsr meeting of the committee is held’. Thereaft r, a provision has been made under sub— section (T-AA) that the period can be extended upto 36 months. But, in this case, no period was extended. $ub~sectlon (7-A) of Sectio ‘ b-section (8) (i) of Section 49 of the Act, 1960 envisages that “it shell be bligatory on the outgoing committee of the society to hold elections prior to th expiration of the term under sub-section (7- A) or extended term under sub—5e ion (7-AA). The outgoing committee shalt apply to the Registrar for holding not be in any case less than ni committee". First proviso to sub- the committee the Registrar faiis t conduct elections, the Registrar shall not assume charge of the oommittee and the members of the oommittee shalt continue to hold the ofltces. Seco d proviso to sub—section (a) (i) provides that m. Wmnita ,_-€ iwant Singh Thakur, teamed Govt. Advocate respondents No.1 to 3 & 6, and Mr. P.S. bn behaif of respondent No.4 argued that the Egistrar, Co—operative Societies, in. terms of Act, 1960, to appoint the Election Officer in :he provisions of the Act? 1960. As such, the Registrar was left with no aiternative Pard. Therefore, the action taken by the isonance with ciause (ii) of sub-section (8) of ei for the parties, I have perused the record ection within a reasonable time which shail days before expiration of the term of the on (8) G) provides that if on the request of n s u l i XI-HC—22 EW,W,W (D §€> (2&6 oz LFZp/“DL’WULQHEéfMF mm WI W m Ww wm %mm MEW$W .47- "if me Registrgr fails to conduct el 'ctions of the commitiee within ninety days from the date of expiry of the of the committeg the‘‘committee of the society shall appoint returning a er who shall conduct the election of the commiiiee Within 180 days from date of the éxpily of the iémf’. Clause (ii) of sub-sectlon (8) of Section 49 of he Act 1960 further envisages that “if the committee fails fo hold elecflon nd has not handed over the charge on expiration of the term, under sub- tron (7 A} or exfond$ term under sub- section (7-AA) to the Registrar or a y omcer authonzed by him on his behalf, all the members of the committee shat be deemed to have veoated their seats and me Registrar shall assume charge ind hold election as early as possible". in View of the above provisio s of Section 49 of the Act, 1960, if we iook into the documents filed by the peti ioners 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 the term of the Board is expiring on‘ 12-4- 2002 therefore a request be sent to the Registrar, Co-operative Societiee for appointment of Election Offcer I pursuance of that the Chairman sent the resolution to the Deputy Registrar nd the Deputy Registrar In turn fomrarded the said, resolution on 17— -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‘“ April 2002 the Board of Director a am met and In agenda item No 9 a decision was taken that smce the Registrar has not appomted any Eiecnon Officer therefore. Mukesh Ranwani is appcinted as the Etectlon Ofticer. On receivmg this information, Additional Registrar PR. Naik vide hisrorder dated 23'“ April, 2002, appointed Umesh Tiwari, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies was (Administration) accepted by Durg, the petitioners as Eiection Brcer k vide (Returning its resolution Officer). dated 20‘“ Even April, the same 2002 _ and in pursuance of/that Umesh Twari started the eiection process, the list of K ’H'wnq‘aehi EW'W W ‘P \LJO/ggayLéfJozM 73€é9~ mm {Hm . ............................... m............................. mam WW ‘a‘m‘mm 3 a: Ega§t¥ \g? VQ‘“ s: E voters was finatized and the ele on programme as mentioned in the earlier part of this order was issued on 0-2002 starting from 25-10-2002 ending With 8-1 2-2002 when the Chairma . Vice-Chairman and other members of the in the midst of the eiection process the sand electron process was stayed y the Electron Off‘cer vrde order dated 9-1 1- 2002 Now, coming to the argu ent advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that since the request was not made to the Registrar directly and it was made to the Deputy Registrar therefore same could 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 A4) by which it was decided to make a request to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. for conducting elections as per the p visions of subsection (8) of Section 49 of the Act, 1960. it is true that the co munication of the said resolution was made to the Deputy Registrar on 12- -2 02 which was received in the Offce of the Deputy Registrar on 14-1-2002 fr where the Deputy Registrar fomarded the same on 17— —2002 to the Regist r This is the Internal arrangement which. took time‘ but the same cannot be sldered 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 election within a reasonable time which s II not be in any case less than ninety days before expiration of the term 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 committee has resolved and requested the Registrar to hold election at least inety days in advance and the Registrar has f failed to conduct elections on its 4.\.~ .e Board were to be elected Howe y. ’-‘ consonance with the provisions 1960, l do not find any substan XI—HC-22 uest the Registrar shall not assume charge 4 r c n A , x \w XI-HC—ZZ mam WW wziaw‘w WW§WW 'é;a%r¢r3n%¥r of the committee and the member of the commiflee shall continue ta hold the ome". The reso‘ution was p 90 days prior to the expiry of the term, therefore. the action of the petiti Society was clearly in consonance with the provisions of sub-section (8) of n 49 of the Act, 1960. As per the second proviso to $ub-sectibn (8), if the Registrar fails w conduct elections of the committee within ninety days on th date of expiry of the term of the eommittee. the committee of the satiety shaii appoint returning officer wi’ié’shali eonduct the eiection of the committee with 180 days from the date of the expiry of the term. The committee appointed the Eiection Officer on“ 20-4-2002. After coming to know about the Same, th Registrar appointed the Eiection OFFrcer on the next day. The committee even took st ps as per the provisions of sub-sermon (8) of Section 49 of the Act, 1960, but e Registrar faiied to conduct elections. Not only this, when the committee eta ed taking action to hoid elections. even that was not allowed by the Registrar and taking advantage of the wrong action taken by him, the Registrar uniawf iiy superseded the committee. Therefore; in view of the iegai provisions and ai aspects of the case, l am of the opinion that the order impugned dated 12 2002 has been passed based on the wrong facts and same is liable to be quas ed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12-6-2002 is quashed. Now. coming to the other pr yer made by the petitioners that the originai Board of Directors may be ailowed o continue. for this reiief, 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 te . Thereafter, under the provisions of ciause (ii) of sub-section (8) of Section 49 of the Act. 1960. under the deeming W2 . ii a d o S ‘o i f u r '\ XI-HC-22 EW,W,W wS?(2 30%» (4¢§w‘ww& W134“? Wm W provision, the Board has vacated the seat, therefote, aimost after three years, it will not‘be appropriate to direct the respondents to anew the Board to continue. Since the Election Officer s already appointed and in pureuance of that the election process also com enced, the voters list was also prepared, and the election programme was a so issued. therefore, in the circumstances. the Registrar, Co-operative Societie respondent No.1 is directgdyto ensure that the elections are conducted at the arliest. if the same Retd$ning Officer is in service, then he be allowed to con nue with the election process, and if he is ,not available on account of retire ent or for any other reason, then a new Eiection Officer be appointed and e should conduct eiections from the stage where the election was stayed i.e. based on the same voters list which was already finalized by the Election Officer. However, the time schedule of elections be re-issued and elections should be comleted by all means within a period of five months from today. With the observations and dlreotions aforesaid, the above writ petitions stand disposed of; in View of this order, ail the p ding applications also stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for certiiie A” L2 a, 5i Somal- i ' ’ . (dashed) do W V f p u W mam WW $HWH%H ~. WWW (0' , WW§WW $Wm