IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18112 of 2009 Date of decision:08.12.2009 Raju Solanki ....Petitioner versus Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Sector 17, Chandigarh and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Tushar Sharma, Advocate and Mr. KVS Kang, Advocate, for respondents 4 and 5. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Short reply filed in Court on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 is taken on record. 2. The writ petition seeks for quashing of the tentative list of voters prepared on 10.08.2009. The petitioner’s grievance was that his name was excluded from the list of voters eligible to participate in the election of office bearers to the 4th respondent-Society namely Faridabad Civil Writ Petition No.18112 of 2009 - 2 - Small Scale Pollution Control Cooperative Society. Para 34(3) of the Appendix-A of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Rules, 1989 requires the electoral process to be notified and it appears that the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies gave out the election program on 10.08.2009 which included an exhibition of the list of voters as required under para 35(2) between 11.08.2009 to 18.09.2009. The schedule referred to 19.08.2009 as the date of hearing of objections to the voters list. It appears that the petitioner stated his objections for the exclusion of his name by letter dated 18.09.2009. In the usual course as per the schedule prescribed, the hearing of objections ought to have been undertaken on 19.08.2009, but the complaint of the petitioner is that his objections were not heard and the electoral list were not modified to include his name. 3. After the notification was made for the election which was proposed to be originally held on 18.09.2009, the Government had decided to postpone the election of the Cooperative Society in view of the impending of general election to the Legislative Assembly and re- scheduled the election to take place on 10.12.2009. The subsequent election schedule had been prepared again and as per the terms, the election schedule had been made but in the re-schedule as published, it contained no reference to any particular date before when the objections relating to the voters list were to be heard. In my view, the petitioner cannot have any remedy before this Court for the only reason that when a re-schedule of the election was made, it was done only with reference to the ultimate date of election and from the stage when the filing of the Civil Writ Petition No.18112 of 2009 - 3 - nomination papers were to be made. When a decision to postpone the election was made, it was made admittedly subsequent to the date when the objections relating to the finalization of the voters list had been given in the first notification. If by the first notification the last date for consideration of objections relating to the voters list fell on 19.08.2009 and if the petitioner’s grievance had not been addressed on that day, the petitioner ought to have resorted to an appropriate remedy if he felt aggrieved by the same. It appears that the writ petition has been brought up for admission only on 26.11.2009. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had been making representation with the Assistant Registrar and was under the belief that his grievance was going to be redressed and hence, he did not come to Court. It is not a contention that can merit acceptance especially when the adjudication is sought when the election is just two days away from the date when the matter is brought up for hearing viz. on 10.12.2009. The petitioner cannot avail of a remedy before this Court at the last minute and laches even for a few days which is material in the case relating to conduct of election would obtain predominant consideration and will render the petitioner ineligible to obtain any relief. 4. Even apart from laches as noted by me, the statement filed by the Society disputes petitioner’s membership. I do not intend to undertake an exercise of whether the petitioner is a member or not. If there exists a dispute, it is a dispute for which the petitioner will have appropriate remedy under Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act. That alone shall an effective remedy and he could have no Civil Writ Petition No.18112 of 2009 - 4 - grievance before this Court. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 08.12.2009 sanjeev