( 1 ) THE petitioners in this writ petition have questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Asst Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Ramanagaram in MIS. DISF. No. 9 of 1973-74 on his file, holding that he had no jurisdiction to enquire into the validity of an election to thei Committee of a Co-operative Society under S. 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ).

( 2 ) THE ground on which the Asst Registrar of Co-operative Societies declined to investigate into the election dispute was that the Karnataka co-operative Appellate Tribunal had heid in an appeal before it that disputes relating to election to the Committee of Co-operatve Societies could not be decided under S. 70 of the. Act. The Tribunal in rejecting the election petition depended upon a decision of this Court in Hayat Beig v. Munivenkle Gowda, (1872) 1 Myslj. 121, in which a Division Bench of this Court had held that a Munsiff functioning under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Village panchayat (Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1969, could not set aside the election to the office of the Chairman in the absence of any statutory provision laying down the grounds on which an election could be set aside. Following the said decision, the Tribunal held that in the absence of any statutory provision laying down the grounds on which an election to the Committee of Cooperative Society could be set aside, under the Act, a dispute relating to an election could not be enquired into under S. 70 of the Act.

( 3 ) SRI M. Papanna, learned Counsel for the petitioners, raised among others, three contentions in support of the writ petition. They are : (1) The Tribunal was wrong in coming to the conclusion that a dispute relating to an election could not be enquired into under S. 70 of the act, on the basis of the decision of this Court in Hayat Brig's case (1) as the said decision related to an election of Chairman under the Karnataka village Panchayat and Local Boards Act and not to an election held under the Act; (ii) The Tribunal should have held that the observations made by the high Court in Hayat Beig's case (1) stating that the Munsiff could not have set aside the election in the absence of statutory provisions laying down the grounds were in the nature of obiter dicta, as that case could have been decided on the finding recorded by the High Court that the Munsiff had not recorded a specific finding that the result, of the election had been materially affected by reason of non-compliance with a certain rule; and (iii) That sub-rule (4a) of Rule 31 of the Rules framed under the Act gave sufficient guidance to the Registrar of Arbitrator functioning under s. 70 of the Act, as to the manner in which a dispute relating to election should be disposed of.

( 4 ) IN Hayat Beig's case (1), the facts were these : At a election held for the office of the Chairman of a Village Panchayat, the petitioner and the first respondent in that case were the contesting candidates. At the, time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers, an objection was raised to the nomination of the petitioner therein on the ground that it had not been presented by the proposer as requird by the rule governing the election. That objection was over-ruled by the person conducting the election. Thereafter, the election was held. At the election, the petitioner therein secured more number of votes than the other candidate and he was declared elected as Chairman. Thereupon, the first respondent therein filed a petition before the, Munsiff under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Village Panchayats (Election of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairrnan) Rules 1959 questioning the validity of the election of the petitioner therein. The learned Munsiff set aside the election and directed fresh election. While doing so, he failed to record a finding that the election had been materially affected by the improper acceptance, of the nomination paper or by non-compliance with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document