wu P. § ya g€3~$12w ;&M\l.NMa I Z'L’ (’- f? I_1y_THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURELAT BILASPUR CHHATTISfARH Rg£y€k £$§§§W w.p. (C) Nof.% fé‘ 2007 r » w) 9" '8 OTHER MATTER c PETITIONERS: 1./Khem Raj Patel S/o Late Lachhmi Prasad Patel , aged about 5O years , Occupation Agriculture , R/o Village Mahuvadodha Block 85 Tehsil Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh ,an Elected Member of the Board of g Elle : ' ¢§ l azy " l #0 ly Directors Prathmik Vipanan Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G)., /’ 2. r Dudh Nath Patel S/o .Lchh Ram Patel ,aged about 35 years Occupation Agriculture , R/O Village Godihari Block 85 Tehsil Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh , an Elected Member of the Board of Directors Prathmik Vipanan Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh (CG). . Smt. Neelavati Patel W/o Shri Khemraj Patel aged about 45 years, Occupation Agriculture ,R/o Village eMahuvadodha Block 8r, Tehsil Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh an Elected ‘Member of the Board of Directors Prathmik Vipanan Sahkari (gwyy V. t 3 V l‘ ml all «3 (.......................... amuccaccucog/ MrAnmp~/»n»M.,Nmnwn,,¢ Samiti Maryadit Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh / (CG). 4 . Smt. Sonkunvar W/o Premsingh aged about 70 years, Occupation Agriculture R/o Village Chandai Post Kudhri Block 8L Tehsil Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh an Elected Member of the Board of Directors Prathmik Vipanan‘ Sahkari VSamiti Maryadit Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G). VERSUS 1.State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, L5 Department of Co—operative D.K.S Bhavan, Mantralay Raipur (CG). E 2.Registrar, Co operative Societies, State of (5 ' Chhatisgarh‘Raipur (CG). Registrar, Co operative Societies, 4.VDeputy Registrar Co operative Societies, Raigarh (co). 5.Board of Directors Prathmik Sahkari Vipanan Samiti Maryadit Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh‘ (C.G), Cum Nominated Committee , through it's President Mr. Lakhan Lal Shama S/ o Late Kushal Chahd Shanna R/o Ward Nq.06 Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G)., Raipur State of Chhattisgarh Raipur (CG). c. yaw x < V s i: 6.Manager Sahkari Vipanan Samiti Maryadit Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G) ar Sarangarh / Returning Offlcer Sahkari Vipanan Samiti Maryadit Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ’4 7. Mr. K.S.Mandavi Tehsild CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I V HIGH COURT OF CHHAITISGARH Z BILASPU R WRIT PETlTlON (C) NO.7696 OF 2007 PETITIONERS Khem Raj Patel & Others SPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others RE (Writ Petition undér Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— ShriS.N. Nande, Advocate for the petitioners. Versus Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORDER gORAL) (Passed on this 23rd day of November, 2010) Challenge in this petition is to the communication dated 19’“ November, 2007 (Annexure P/1) from the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raigarh, directing that since all the Directors could not be elected in the Prathmik Viparan Sah’akari Samiti Maryadit, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (for short “the Samiti”), thus, the earlier nominated Directors may continue to act as Directors. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners are the elected members of the Board of Directors of the Samiti. The election was held on 1840-2007 and the result of elected Directors was also announced on the same day, as is evident from the Annexures PIS, P/4, P/5 & P/6. The Samiti consists of 9 members, out of which 4 members were elected from the category-kha and remaining l 5 members were required to be elected from the category- ka. Under the provisions of law, if some members couid not be appointed, the election for electing other members should be initiated at once. Co-option was not possible. In the case on hand, the petitioners being elected Directors of the Samiti, by virtue of communication dated 19-11-2007, have been kept away and the earlier nominated members were allowed to continue to perform the function as Directors. Shri Nande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the members were nominated earlier when the election to the post of Directors was not held, after dissolution of the Samiti. Thereafter, when the election had taken place there is no reason to continue the nominated members in place of the elected members, as there is no dispute that 5 members were nominated from category-ka. The authorities ought to have initiated process by holding election than continuing the earlier nominated members other than the elected Board of Directors i.e. the petitioners, herein. On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State, submits that there are three kinds are members in the Samiti. Firstly; category-ka from Sahakari Societies and the State Government; secondly; category—kha from the individual agriculturist and; thirdly; category-ga from the traders, agents & shop keepers, who have business relation with the Samiti. The election to the Directors under category—ka could not be completed, as 12 Sahakari Societies wherefrom Directors ought to have been elected, were held disqualified. in that view of the matter, for want of quorum the earlier nominated members were permitted to continue. Learned State counsel referred to the provisions of Rule 45(3) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (for short “the Rule 1962”), which deals with the disqualification for representation. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is indisputable that the petitioners are elected Directors from category—kha i.e agriculturists. The impugned communication had permitted the earlier nominated members from all categories to continue for want of quorum. This appears to be unjustified. The members of other categories could not be elected. The Government should consider either co-option or election of the Directors at once, but not to allow all the nominated Directors including from category-kha to continue forever. Even in that situation, Rule 41 (13) of the Rules, 1962 provides that if the number of committee members so elected falls short of the number of seats specified in the election notice for committee members, the committee members shall fill up all the remaining seats by co-option in a meeting to be presided over by the Returning Officer. 8. Rule 41 (13) ofthe Rules, 1962 reads as under: ”41. Procedure for election of members of the Committee.— XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (13) If the umr of committee meers, so elected fal/s sho of the number of seats specified in the electi otice fo ottee emr, the cmittee members shall fi/I up the remaining ses by co-option in a meeting to be presided over by the Returni Officer: Povided that, if the numr membe elt falls short of t quoru fixed ‘for the meeting of the comittee in the bye-laws, cotion shall not b made and the electi process shll be started afresh for the remaining seats. ” 9.» In Vie of the above clear provision, afortated, te w as es her is no scope for continuation f the minat mrs in e o noed embe th erli ee soage q re aer committ. If there was hrt of uorum, the we two cditio available i. fitl eher co-t t er onns e. rsy; it op he embers and if th quorum for co—opting the was m e members also not possible in that case, fresh election process be initiated. 10. ln the case on hand, it appears that without taking recourse of provisions of sub-rule (13) of Rule 41 of the Rules, 1962, the authorities have continued the earlier nominated members to continue as Board of Directors. 11. it is urged by Shri Nande, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the nomination of members takes place only in the eventuality when the committee is dissolved. Once the A it l nbe mb rt on n r cmmi mbe om at ng r be of rs eced he m m -op e on a election process has been initiated and new members have been elected then there is no option for nomination, but only for either co—option or for election. Nothing has been done in this case. Only the old nominated members have been allowed to continue. Thus, t impugned order is he vitiated. 12. This Court by order dated 2-1-2008 stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 19-11-2007. Thus, the petitioners were allowed to continue and function as Directors of the Board. However, the election process, which is the basic foundation of democratic setup, cannot be stopped by any order. 13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 19-1 1-2007 is quashed and liberty is reserved to the State Government to proceed with the matter either for co-option or election, as the case may be. Needful may be done as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. in the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. . Ma Sdl- . Satish K. Agnihotn \ Gowri Judge