WP(C) 3228/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI :: J U D G M E N T & O R D E R :: [ O R A L ] Heard Mr. AM Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. G Soren, lea rned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents. Heard als o Dr. B Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner, as a member of Rajyashapur Co-operative Society Ltd., Ha ilakandi, which is registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies Registratio n Act, 1449, filed his nomination paper for being elected as Chairman of the sai d society. The petitioner’s nomination papers were accordingly accepted, on 11-1 1-2009, by the Returning Officer, who was to conduct the elections of the Managi ng Committee of the said society. However, after acceptance of the nomination pa pers of the petitioner, a complaint was made by the respondent No. 6 herein, who too is a member of the said Society and who too was a candidate for the office of the Chairman of the said Society, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner h erein was not qualified to be a member of the said Society, because of the embar go placed on his becoming a member of the said Society by Bye-laws No. 6(1) and that the Bye-law No. 22(1)(v) of the said Society disqualified him from seeking election to any office of the said Society including the office of the Chairman. Accepting the complaint made by the respondent No. 6, respondent No. 4 passed a n order, on 13-11-2009, cancelling the petitioner’s nomination for the office of the Chairman of the said Society. 3. Aggrieved by the order, dated 13-11-2009, the petitioner challenged the same by way of a writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution of Ind ia, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 4975/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ’the ’fir st’ writ petition’), wherein he contended that though the Returning Officer had accepted his nomination paper, on 11-11-2009, for his election to the office of the Chairman of the said Society, respondent No. 4, vide order, dated 13-11-2009 , declared the nomination submitted by the petitioner as invalid on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 6, though the complaint had no legal substance, the complaint ought not to have been accepted and his (petitioner’s) nomination ought to have been sustained. 4. By order, dated 18-11-2009, passed in WP(C) No. 4975 of 2009 (i.e., the ’first’ writ petition’), the Court allowed the elections to the various offices of the Managing Committee of the said society to be held except to the office of the Chairman thereof. By a subsequent order, dated 01-04-2010, however, the Cou rt held that as against the order, dated 13-11-2009, passed by the Assistant Reg istrar of Co-operative Societies, Hailakandi, there is provision for appeal unde r Section 80 of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949, and, hence, the stat utory remedy of appeal ought to have been availed by the petitioner. With the re asoning, so assigned, the ’first’ writ petition was disposed of providing therei n that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order, dated 13-11-2009, before respondent No. 2, namely, Registrar of Co-opera tive Societies, Assam, with further direction to the Registrar, Co-operative Soc ieties, to consider and dispose of the appeal, in accordance with law, should th e present petitioner files an appeal. The relevant observations made by the Cour t and the directions given by it in its order, dated 01-04-2010, read as under: The grievance of the petitioner is that after the list of candidates for the of fice of the Chairmanship was published, a complaint was lodged by the respondent No. 6 making several allegations, viz., double membership of A class member in one holding and the father of the petitioner being an agent/’dealer’ of the soci ety was within the expression of interested in the transaction of the society etc. and thereafter the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hailakandi, passed the impugned order dated 13.11.2009 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) can celling the nomination of the petitioner for the office of the Chairmanship of R ajyeswarpur Somabai Samittee. Affidavits were filed by the respondents as well a s reply affidavit by the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner has al so raised the question of jurisdictional incompetency of the Asstt. Registrar to issue the impugned order dated 13.11.2009, interpretation of the provision of b ye-laws U/S 22 (1)(v) of the Gaon Panchayat Samabai Samittee (for short G.P.S.S. Ltd) and also the bye-laws under Sections 22 (i) vi and 22 (i) vii and other re lated provisions. 5. The petitioner, accordingly, preferred an appeal to the Registrar, Co-op erative Society against the order, dated 13-11-2009, aforementioned, passed by t he respondent No. 4, whereby acceptance of the petitioner’s nomination had been cancelled. In appeal, the contention of the petitioner, as indicated in the impu gned order, dated 13-11-2009, aforementioned, was as under: 1. That he was a candidate for the post of Chairman of the society and that the Returning Officer accepted his nomination as valid. 2. But the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hailakandi, while enterta ining some complaints, cancelled his nomination, whereas the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies is not delegated with the power under Section 80 of the Act. 3. The provisions of Clause 22(1)(v) of the Byelaws does not attract his case as he has not been residing with his father and, hence, he should not be denied ’A ’ class membership. 6. By order, dated 26-05-2010, the Registrar dismissed the appeal. While di smissing the appeal, the Registrar noted that the Assistant Registrar had, while cancelling the nomination of the present petitioner, assigned the following rea sons: 1. That Sri Fayzul Haque Mazumdr and his father reside in the same house hold w ith same holding No. for both of them and, hence, there can not be two ’A’ Class members from a same family. 2. The father of Sri Mazumder is a ’dealer’ of the society and, hence, provision of Clause 22(1)(v) is attracted in this regard. 7. Having taken note of the above reasons, which had been assigned by respo ndent No. 4, namely, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hailakandi, th e Registrar’s findings, as recorded in its order, dated 26-05-2010, read as unde r: Findings: It has been found that the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies , of a subdivision is authorized to entertain complaints against the decision of the Returning Officer as communicated vide this office circular No. GPSS 6/86/3 7 dtd 5.7.96 and in the instant case the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative Societ ies, Hailakandi rightly entertained the matter and disposed of the matter after giving both the parties reasonable opportunity to represent their cases and I do not find anything wrong in his findings & the action taken by the Asstt. Regist rar of Co-operative Societies. In the light of the above, I, Shri SK Nath, IAS Registrar of Co-operative Societ ies, Assam, is of the opinion that the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative Societie s, Hailakandi, has cancelled the nomination of Sri Fayzul Haque Mazumder after e xamining all relevant facts & circumstance and there is no scope for the undersi gned to intervene in the matter. 8. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, yet another order was made, on 26-05-2010, by the Registrar to hold the Annual General Meeting of the said Society and also election to the office of the Chairman of the said Society with in a period of 30 days. 9. Thereafter, by filing a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India, the petitioner put to challenge not only the order, dated 13-11-2 009, whereby the Assistant Registrar had cancelled his nomination for the office of the Chairman of the said Society, but also the order, 26-05-2010, whereby th e Registrar had dismissed the appeal and directed, as a sequel thereto, that the election to the office of the Chairman of the said Society be held within the p eriod as indicated above. The said writ petition gave rise to WP(C) No. 3228 of 2010, which is hereinafter referred to as the ’second’ writ petition’. 10. It may, now, be noted that the Court passed, on 25-06-2010, an order, in the ’second’ writ petition, allowing the election for the office of the Chairma n of the said Society to be held, on 26-06-2010, as was already scheduled to be held, but the Court made it clear that if the elections were held, the result th ereof would remain subject to the further order(s) to be passed in the writ peti tion. 11. It may also be noted that in the election, which was scheduled to be hel d on 26-06-2010, the present petitioner could not have contested the election in asmuch as his nomination already stood cancelled. As scheduled, the election to the office of the Chairman was held on 26-06-2010, whereupon the present petitio ner sought for, in the ’second’ writ petition (i.e., WP(C) No. 3228 of 2010), a direction suspending the impugned order, dated 13-11-2009, whereby respondent No . 4 had cancelled petitioner’s nomination as well as the order, dated 26-05-2010 , whereby the respondent No. 2 had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. By its ord er, dated 17-08-2010, passed in the ’second’ writ petition, the Court declined t o pass any order suspending the said two impugned orders, dated 13-11-2009 and 2 6-05-2010. In its order, dated 17-08-2010, the Court also made it clear that sin ce the election to the office of the Chairman of the said Society had already be en held on 26-05-2010, where respondent No. 6 herein stood elected, and the proc eedings thereof had already been approved by the respondent No. 4 on 29-06-2010, there was no purpose in suspending the said two orders, namely, the order, date d 13-11-2009, and the order, dated 26-05-2010. 12. As the proceedings of the election, held on 26-05-2010, had already been approved, on 29-06-2010, the petitioner filed yet another writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 5853 of 2 010 (hereinafter referred to as ’the ’third’ writ petition’), whereby the petiti oner has challenged the result of the election held for the office of the Chairm an of the said Society on 26-05-2009 and the approval thereof by the respondent No. 3 on 29-06-2010. 13. As already indicated above, the petitioner’s nomination was cancelled on two counts, namely, that he was not qualified to be a member of the Managing Co mmittee under Bye-law 22(1) and that he was not even eligible to become a Class ’A’ individual member of the Society, because of the embargo placed by Bye-law 6 (1). The relevation provisions of the Bye-laws 22(1) and 6(1) are, therefore, re produced hereinbelow: 22(1) No person shall be eligible for election or continuance as a member of th e Managing Committee, if he, - (i) & & & & & & & & &. (ii) & & & & & & & & &. (iii) & & & & & & & & &. (iv) & & & & & & & & &. (v) is interested directly or or indirectly in any contract made with the societ y or in any sale or purchase made by the society, privately or in any auction or in any contract or transaction of the society (other than investment and borrow ings) involving financial interest. 6(1) Any person not below eighteen years of age, who is competent to contract an d is residing within the area of operations of the society referred to in Bye-la w No. 1, shall be eligible for admission as an individual member. Provided that no person whose Principal source of livelihood is any trad e or business undertaken by the Society or money-lending shall be eligible to be an ’A’ class individual member. Provided also that not more than one member from a family shall be entit led for admission as an ’A’ class individual member. 14. From a careful reading of Bye-law 22(1)(v), what becomes clear is that n o person shall be eligible for election or continuance as a member of the Managi ng Committee if he is interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract made w ith the society or in any sale or purchase made by the society, privately or in any auction or in any contract or transaction of the society (other than investm ent and borrowings) involving financial interest. If, therefore, the fact that t he petitioner’s father is a ’dealer’ is an aspect, which has been rightly taken into account by the appropriate authority for determination if the petitioner ca n be treated as a person, who is, if not directly, indirectly interested in the contract, which his father has with the Society as a ’dealer’, the decision cann ot be faulted at. 15. Coupled with the above, the second proviso to Bye-law 6(1) shows that no t more than one member from a family shall be entitled for appointment as ’A’ Cl ass individual member. If, therefore, the petitioner and his father constitute o ne family, the petitioner cannot be, and could not have been, admitted as ’A’ Cl ass individual member of the said Society. 16. The chronology of the events, as depicted above, clearly indicate that t he petitioner’s nomination was accepted by the Returning Officer on 11-11-2009. On a complaint made against the acceptance of nomination of the petitioner by th e respondent No. 6 on the ground that the petitioner’s nomination ought not to h ave been accepted by the Returning Officer, an order was passed, on 13-11-2009, by the Assistant Registrar, cancelling the nomination. The reasons, assigned for such cancellation, read as under: As per complain lodged by the complainant that the candidate Sri Fayzul Haque M azumder is residing in the same holding No. 80 with his father Sri Ajob Uddin Ma zumder who is an Agent of the Rajyswarpur S.S Ltd which disqualifies Sri Faizul Haque Mazumdar from contesting the election for the post of Managing Committee o f the Society vide Section 22(1)(v) of the Bye-laws of the society. Secondly, there cannot be 2 (two) A class members from the same holding/family a s per Bye-laws provision 6(1). It appears from the Electoral Roll 2008 of Vill-R ajyeswarour-VII, P.S. No. 64, L.A. 6, Hailakandi that Sri Fayzul Haque Mazumder, S/O Ajob Uddin Mazumder belongs to same holding No. 80 of the same voter list. Sri Fayzul Haque Mazumder the contesting candidate could not refute the complain brought against him. 17. Though the writ petitioner had challenged the order, dated 13-11-2009, b y way of a writ petition, which had given rise to WP(C) No. 4975 of 2009, and wh ich has been referred to as the ’first’ writ petition, the fact remains that the ’first’ writ petition was disposed of by providing that the petitioner may pref er a statutory appeal against the order cancelling the nomination. The petitione r, accordingly, preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by order, dated 26-05-2 010. Following the order, dated 26-05-2010, the election was held for the office of the Chairman of the said Society on 26-06-2009 and the same has received app roval of the Assistant Registrar on 29-06-2009. If, therefore, the orders, dated 13-11-2009 and 26-05-2010, are upheld by this Court, the result of the election , held on 26-06-2009, and approval thereof cannot be interfered with inasmuch as the petitioner’s grievance is that the cancellation of his nomination was illeg al. 18. On reverting to the reasons assigned for cancelling the petitioner’s nom ination, what can be clearly noticed is that one of the grounds for cancellation of the petitioner’s nomination was that the petitioner and his father resided i n the same house with the same holding number and, hence, under the Bye-law of t he Society, two persons from the same family cannot be ’A’ Class members and whe n the petitioner’s father was already a Class ’A’ member, the petitioner was not qualified to be a Class ’A’ member of the said Society. In this regard, the pet itioner contends that he does not reside with his father. In the face of the spe cific finding of fact, which the Assistant Registrar had reached, it becomes a d isputed question of fact as to whether the petitioner does or does not really re side with his father. Such a disputed question of fact cannot be determined in a proceeding of present nature inasmuch as it would require holding of roving inq uiry and that would necessitate taking of evidence. 19. More importantly, the petitioner’s father is, admittedly, a ’dealer’ of the said Society and under the Bye-law 22(1), a person will not be qualified to be a member of the Managing Committee ’if he is interested directly or indirectl y in any contract made with the society or in any sale or purchase made by the s ociety, privately or in any auction or in any contract or transaction of the soc iety (other than investment and borrowings) involving financial interest’. When the petitioner’s father is a ’dealer’, he obviously has a contract, as ’dealer’, with the said society. In such circumstances, the petitioner’s father’s transac tions, with the said society, would involve financial interests. 20. In the face of the above unavoidably noticeable facts, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a person, who has no direct or indirect interest in any transactions of the said society, which involves financial interest. It is not t he petitioner’s case that he and his father are enimical to each other. In such circumstances, the petitioner, if I may reiterate, cannot be said to have no dir ect or indirect interest in seeing that his father prospers. At the same time, a s an ideal Chairman ? if the petitioner wishes to be an ideal Chairman ? he woul d be required to advance the interest of the said society. There would be, thus, ex facie clash of interest. 21. Clearly, therefore, when an administrative authority, such as, responden t No. 4, has taken a decision by taking into account all relevant facts and by e schewing from his consideration any such fact, which was irrelevant, such a deci sion cannot be interfered with by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. Even if there were two views possible and the Sta te respondents have taken one of the views, the same cannot be interfered with b y this Court unless this Court reaches a clear conclusion that the view taken by the administrator is wholly irrational or mala fide. Far from this, in the fact s and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner cannot be described as a person, who would have no direct or indirect interest in the affairs of the sai d society, which would involve transactions having financial interest. At any ra te, the order passed, on 13-11-2009, by the Assistant Registrar, cannot be said to be an order without any basis or foundation nor can the said order be describ ed as an order, which is irrational, mala fide or devoid of legal foundation. 22. Situated thus, when the order, dated 13-11-2009, is found by this Court as not fit for being interfered with, the question of interfering with the subse quent order, namely, the order, dated 26-05-2010, does not arise. When the order , dated 13-11-2009, and the order, dated 26-05-2010, are found not fit to be int erfered with, the question of interfering with the result of the election, which was held on 26-06-2010 and approval thereof accorded on 29-06-2010, cannot be i nterfered with either. 23. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, both these writ petitions f ail, the same are not admitted and shall, accordingly, stand dismissed. 24. No order as to costs.