Civil Writ Petition No.11333 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11333 of 2011 Date of Decision:14.11.2011 Navraj Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.K.S.Sivia, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 7. Mr.B.S.Sehra, Advocate, for respondent No.8. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, having approved the Zones by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, the Election Manager of the Kapurthala Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Limited, Kapurthala, prepared and issued a detailed election programme(Annexure P-1) on 04.06.2011, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and the Relevant Rules”), by means of which, the election was proposed to be held by secret ballot. The Presiding Officer was required to declare the result on 27.06.2011, as per law, but the District Magistrate, Kapurthala(respondent No.5) abruptly cancelled the election of the Board of Directors, by way of impugned letter dated 20.06.2011(Annexure P-2) on the Civil Writ Petition No.11333 of 2011 2 ground of law and order situation. 2. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.5, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned letter(Annexure P-2), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The case set-up by the petitioners, in brief, insofar as relevant, was that Smt.Upinderjit Kaur(respondent No.7) is the M.L.A of Ruling Party from Sultanpur Lodhi and is currently the Finance Minister, Punjab. Since, she knew that the members, who belong to the Ruling Akali Party were not likely to be elected as Board of Directors, so, she orally directed respondent No.5 to get the election postponed under any circumstances. According to the petitioners that, in this manner, respondent No.5 has illegally cancelled the election process on untenable grounds of law and order problem, without any authority of law and in order to oblige the Finance Minister in this behalf. 4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the petitioners claimed that the District Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction under the Act and the Relevant Rules and illegally cancelled the election by virtue of impugned letter(Annexure P-2). On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioners filed the present writ petition, in the manner depicted hereinabove. 5. Faced with the situation, official respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their joint written statement, whereas respondent No.4 filed its separate written statement. Mr.Harkesh Singh Sidhu, the District Magistrate filed his separate written statement on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6, inter alia, admitting the commencement of election process(Annexure P-1). However, he unsuccessfully tried to explain that although three police officials were sent to the spot for peaceful conduct of the indicated election, but later on he himself found the situation serious and critical and on receipt of report from the S.H.O., he(the District Magistrate) directed to cancel the election process. It will not be out of Civil Writ Petition No.11333 of 2011 3 place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, as the impugned action/letter(Annexure P-2) cannot legally be sustained, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this relevant connection. 7. As is evident from the record that, after approval of the Zones, the Election Manager of the Kapurthala Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Limited, Kapurthala, declared the election programme and commenced the election process for the post of Board of Directors, through the medium of election programme issued on 04.06.2011(Annexure P-1), which was approved by the Deputy Registrar, exercising the powers of the Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Punjab. In pursuance thereof, the Election Manager sought police assistance from the S.H.O., Police Station City, Kapurthala, for peaceful conduct of the election, by means of letter dated 18.06.2011(Annexure R-8/1). Consequently, one Head Constable and two Constables were deployed for the smooth conduct of the election by the S.H.O. Strange enough, the District Magistrate(respondent No.5) cancelled the election process by way of impugned letter dated 20.06.2011(Annexure P-2) on an untenable ground of law & order situation and without any material or basis. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents did not point out any provisions, under the Act or the Relevant Rules, which authorises the District Magistrate, to abruptly cancel the already commenced election process in this context. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no material, but the District Magistrate cancelled the election process at the instance of respondent No.7, has considerable force. 9. No material, much less cogent, is forthcoming on record, on the basis Civil Writ Petition No.11333 of 2011 4 of which, the District Magistrate formed such opinion to cancel the election. How, when and in what manner, there was any law and order problem, remains an unfolded mystery. Assuming for the sake of arguments (though not admitted), if there was any such law and order problem, then the District Magistrate was well within his right to initiate appropriate proceedings, or can take action as contemplated under Chapters VIII & XI Cr.P.C., or may pass such order under Sections 144 and 144-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or any other law for the time being in force, as the case may be, that too after following the due procedure/compliance of the relevant provisions of law, as warranted by the situation and not otherwise. Be that as it may, but in any case, the District Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction under the Act/Relevant Rules, to cancel the already commenced democratic election process, in a very very casual and abrupt manner, without any material/basis. Therefore, to me, the District Magistrate has acted arbitrarily and illegally cancelled the election process, without any basis and the impugned action/letter cannot legally be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted. The impugned action/letter(Annexure P-2) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to hold election from the stage, where it was cancelled, in view of the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.18942 of 2003 titled as Buta Singh and others Versus The Registrar Co-operative Societies Punjab and others(Annexure P-6) decided on 23.02.2004, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. November 14, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No