IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1576 of 2008 Date of Decision: 4.2.2008 Jaskaran Singh and others Petitioners Versus The Special Secretary Co-operation (A) Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Shri O.P.Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) The petitioners were the elected members of respondent No.5- Society. Election of the executive committee was conducted on 16.9.2006. It is apparent from the records that at the time of election of the executive committee, 12 nomination papers were received on 16.9.2006, out of which 3 were rejected and 9 members, including the petitioners were declared elected. Election was challenged by raising a dispute under Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It was contention of Civil Writ Petition No.1576 of 2008 the complainant that after start of the process of election, order staying the same, passed by a Civil Court was brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer and on account of that many people left the venue of election, failed to file nomination and participate in the election. The Arbitrator dismissed the election petition. The complainant went in appeal, which was allowed vide order (Annexure P/2) dated 10.6.2007. It was noticed by the appellate authority that before election was concluded, order staying the process was brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer, however, he proceeded further to continue with the election. It was also noticed by the appellate authority that on coming to know of the stay order passed, complainant and many other individuals left venue of the election. It was further noticed that proper proclamation was not made in the village before conduct of election. It was also found that the members came to know about passing of the stay order before filing of the nomination papers. By noticing above said facts, it was observed that on coming to know of the stay order passed by the Court, it was duty of the Presiding Officer to stay the election. It was also observed by the appellate authority that the Arbitrator has noticed that in the meeting 151 members were present, whereas in fact, 232 members were present. By noting above said facts, the appellate authority observed that order (Annexure P/3) was passed in a hasty manner and reversed the same by setting aside election of the petitioners. They went in revision, which was also dismissed by noticing the facts, which were noticed by the appellate authority. It was further observed that many irregularities were committed when election was conducted. We feel that the revisional order passed is perfectly justified. When the Presiding Officer had come to know about passing of the stay 2 Civil Writ Petition No.1576 of 2008 order by a civil Court, before receipt of nomination paper, it was his duty to stay the election proceedings and if need be, move an application to get that order vacated. Contention of the respondents that on coming to know of the stay order passed, they left the venue of election also appears to be justified. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge February 04, 2008 (Jaswant Singh) gk Judge 3