Letters Patent Appeal No.1118 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.1118 of 2011 Date of decision: 5.7.2011 Balwant Singh and others ...Appellants Versus ARCS Jaito and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. M.S.Kang, Advocate for the appellants. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition challenging election of the Managing Committee of Doad Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Ltd. which is a cooperative society constituted under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. 2. Ground on which the election was sought to be challenged was that 40 or more voters who happened to be in the voter list were not issued ballot papers and thus not allowed to participate. They were not defaulters but were eligible. 3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, inter-alia, on the ground that the appellants did not raise any objection before commencement of election process and the question whether eligible voters were debarred from participation being a disputed question of fact could not be gone into in the writ proceeding. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was no Letters Patent Appeal No.1118 of 2011 -2- occasion to raise objection before the election process as the appellants never knew that persons in the voter list will not be issued ballot papers and thus it was only during the election that the impugned action of not issuing of ballot papers to the eligible voters came to the notice of the appellants. As regards observation in the impugned order that question of voters being eligible was a disputed question for which a different remedy could be taken, it is submitted that though the appellants have remedy of filing election petition under Rule 51 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963, the said remedy could not be availed as the Registrar was the Returning Officer, who is the authority to make reference of a dispute for arbitration under Section 55 of the Act. 6. We are unable to accept the submissions. Even if we accept the submission that the appellants could not raise the issue in absence of occasion to raise such issue earlier, the question whether eligible voters were debarred from participation which adversely affected the result of election involves determination of a disputed question of fact for which writ proceeding is not appropriate remedy. The said question will require determination on evidence. 7. In this view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not debar any other remedy of the appellants in accordance with law. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice July 05, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge