Rajwant Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. M.S. Kang, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate for respondents No. 6 to 10. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of resolution, Annexure P-3 dated 08.08.2008 and orders dated

16.12.2008 & 09.03.2009, Annexures P-4 & P-5 respectively. Brief factual background of the case is that the petitioners and respondents are committee members of Sangatpur Multipurpose Cooperative Service Society Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Society’). They were elected as members of Society in the election held on June 1,

2007. A meeting of the committee was fixed thereafter on June 18, 2007 but the same was postponed as a harijan member remained to be co-opted. The Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies (respondent No. 4) vide order Civil Writ Petition No. 6966 of 2009 2 dated June 18, 2007 directed that meeting of the Managing Committee be called after co-opting a harijan member. On 08.08.2008 vide resolution, Annexure P-3/T a harijan member was co-opted and office bearers were also elected. The said resolution was challenged by the petitioners by preferring a petition before respondent No. 2. The said petition was dismissed vide order, Annexure P-4. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before Financial Commissioner (Co-operation) Punjab (respondent No. 1). The same was dismissed vide order dated 09.03.2009, Annexure P-5/T. Thereafter, instant petition was preferred by the petitioners before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the orders and contends that same were in violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 80 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rule, 1963. He has referred to Section 26-A of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), sub section (3) whereof provides that a member co-opted would have the same rights and privileges as would accrue to an elected member. Thus according to him, co-option should have taken place earlier in time and thereafter meeting of the Managing Committee should have been held. On behalf of the respondents it has been submitted that co-option actually took place after issuance of fifteen days clear notice and immediately thereafter election was held. Thus, there is no violation of any provisions of law and impugned orders deserve to be upheld. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Civil Writ Petition No. 6966 of 2009 3 Rule 80 of the Rules reads thus:- (i) At least fifteen days’ clear notice, specifying the date, place, time and agenda for a meeting of a general body/committee and at least seven days’ clear notice for a meeting of any smaller body set up by either of them, whether convened by the Registrar, the President or otherwise, shall be given to all the members of the general body/committee or smaller body, as the case may be; Provided that a shorter notice may be given to all the members of the general body/committee or smaller body, as the case may be, with the permission of the Registar or under his direction. (ii) The Registrar, may of his own motion or on a reference made to him, declare the proceedings of the meeting referred to in clause (i) as invalid, if he is satisfied that the meeting was held without proper notice or without all the members having received the notice for the meeting or if the meeting was not conducted at the appropriate place and time and;” It is evident that aforesaid Rule provides for fifteen days clear notice specifying date, place, time and agenda for a meeting of a general body/committee and at least seven days notice for any smaller body. As per record, a notice in terms of the above provision was issued on 23.07.2008 wherein the proposed place of meeting, time and agenda were circulated. On expiry of the period prescribed, a meeting of the Committee was held and office bearers were elected. According to order dated 18.06.2007 issued by Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, it was directed that meeting of the Managing Committee should be called after co-opting a harijan member. It appears that meeting was held on August 08, 2008 and Civil Writ Petition No. 6966 of 2009 4 co-option of harijan member did take place. However, elections of office bearers were also held. The Additional Registrar as well as Financial Commissioner rejected the plea of the petitioners observing that order dated

18.06.2007 issued by Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies was complied with as fifteen days clear notice was given. It was also observed by the said authorities that respondents were in majority and thus no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any patent error in the impugned orders. His plea that no meeting of the Committee was actually held and merely a resolution showing that a meeting of the committee was held on August 8, 2008, was entered in the proceedings book, is untenable as it is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction of this court being a disputed question of fact. As regards his plea that there was violation of Rule 80 inasmuch as fifteen days clear notice was not given, the same is without any merit. It is evident from the record that agenda was circulated on 23.07.2008, Annexure P-2/T and on expiry of fifteen days thereafter, a meeting of the Committee was held wherein co-option took place and office bearers were also elected. There can be thus, no doubt that there was compliance of Rule 80 of the Rules. As regards the submission made by learned counsel that co-option and election could not have taken place on the same date as the harijan member who was co-opted was fully eligible to contest the election in terms of Section 26-A (3), suffice is to say that no such plea was taken by the harijan member who was co opted in the said meeting. He neither showed any inclination to contest the election nor challenged the resolution dated 08.08.2009. It is thus clear that the petitioners are trying to espouse Civil Writ Petition No. 6966 of 2009 5 the cause of Gurdip Singh, the member who was co opted despite the fact that he never raised a dispute. Learned counsel has not been able to show that respondents were not in majority as observed by respondents No. 1 & 2 in the impugned orders. In the eventuality that the respondents were in majority, it can be safely said that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. In view of above, it is apparent that present petition is without any merit. The same is hereby dismissed. May 04, 2011 Ajay (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE