Civil Writ Petition No. 6551 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 6551 of 2010 Date of Decision: 11.10.2010 Amarjit Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Kamal Jeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate for respondent No.4. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure P3), passed by respondent No.2- Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, whereby he had set aside the order dated 1.6.2009 (Annexure P2), passed by respondent No.3-Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bathinda. To determine the controversy, it will be necessary to state brief facts of the case. Respondent No.4-Sukhwinder Singh was elected as a President of the Gatwali Co-operative Agriculture Services Society, Gatwali, District Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”). The petitioner had filed an application before respondent No.3 that Civil Writ Petition No. 6551 of 2010 2 respondent No.4-Sukhwinder Singh, who had been elected as a President of the Society, has been convicted by the Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, vide his judgment and order dated 13.7.2001, for the offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1985”) to ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced because he was found in possession of nine bags, each of 30 Kgs. each, of poppy straw. Respondent No.3- Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bathinda, vide his order dated 1.6.2009 (Annexure P2), has held that as per the bylaws No. 35(E), a member of the Society cannot continue on the post if he is convicted for cheating or for any offence of moral turpitude. Respondent No.2-Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, has passed the order dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure P3) setting aside the order (Annexure P2), passed by respondent No.3, on the following grounds:- A) Respondent No.4-Sukhwinder Singh was having a disqualification when his nomination papers were filed. Therefore, the only remedy, available with him, was to file the election petition. Hence, the removal of respondent No.4 is bad. B) It has also been held by respondent No.2 that the conviction for the commission of an offence under Civil Writ Petition No. 6551 of 2010 3 the Act 1985 did not constitute moral turpitude. On both these grounds, the reasoning propounded by respondent No.2, in the impugned order (Annexure P3) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has relied upon Kuldeep Singh Mangewal v. State of Punjab 2000(2) Recent Civil Reports 426 to contend that every allegation of disqualification or ineligibility can only be made subject matter of the election petition and respondent No.3 was not competent to pass the order (Annexure P2). This Court is of the view that the above said judgment is not attracted to the facts of the present case as there is a distinction in setting aside the election and the removal of the office bearer on the ground that he cannot continue in the office because of his conviction for the offence under the Act 1985. There is a difference in setting aside the election in the election petition and the removal of a person who was convicted by the Court of law. The offence under the Act 1985 is a heinous offence. It is also the offence against the society. A person, convicted for such an offence, cannot be allowed to hold any office of the Society especially when the bylaws so prescribe. Therefore, it is not that the election was to be set aside. Respondent No.3 has passed the order dated 1.6.2009 (Annexure P2) removing respondent No.4 as he could not continue in the office till his conviction is set aside. Secondly, to say that the conviction of a person for the offence under the Act 1985, for having in possession of the poppy straw would not constitute moral turpitude, is too naive and it is to be rejected at the very outset. Civil Writ Petition No. 6551 of 2010 4 Therefore, the present writ petition is hereby accepted and the impugned order dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure P3), passed by respondent No.2-Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 11, 2010 “DK”