JUDGMENT

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. - The petitioner is seeking quashing of an order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Cane), Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna (Respondent No.4) in Election Dispute Case No. 173/2017, whereby his election petition for setting aside the election of Respondent No.8 to the post of Secretary, Harlakhi Prakhand Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd. ("Society", in short), has been rejected.

2. The Society is a registered Society under the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935.

3. The petitioner had challenged election of Respondent No.8 to the said post mainly on the ground of him being a defaulting voter and, therefore, disqualified to file nomination. The petitioner had also contested the said election and had lost to Respondent No.8. The petitioner's election petition has been rejected mainly on the ground that the question as to whether the petitioner was a defaulter or not, could have been decided by the competent authority before the process of election had begun and such dispute could not be gone into in an election petition under Section 10 of the Bihar State Election Authority Act, 2008 ("the Act of 2008", in short), relying on a Single Bench decision of this Court rendered on 08.02.2016 in CWJC No.10137 of 2015 (Ram Dhyan Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.).

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.8, wherein it has been stated that there had been node termination of individual liability of Respondent No.8 requisite for holding him a defaulter.

5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that Respondent No.8 as Secretary of the erstwhile Committee of the Society had collected revenue from the settlee members but had not deposited the same in the relevant account of the State Government, before filing of his nomination papers. He has also argued that Respondent No.8 himself was a settlee and he had not deposited settlement amount, before filing of the nomination papers, in the account of the Society and, therefore, he was a defaulter as on the date of filing of nomination papers. He has referred to Section 12(1) of the Act of 2008 to contend that election of a candidate is liable to be declared void on the ground, inter alia, that on the date of election, a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified to be chosen as a member under the Act. He has, thereafter, referred to Rule 21-N of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959 (in short, "the 1959 Rules"), which disqualifies a person to file nomination papers for election to fill a seat, if he is disqualified for being elected under the provisions of the Act, Rules or the Bye-laws of the Society. Referring to Rule 23(1)(b) of the 1959 Rules, he would contend that a person, who is a defaulter to the Society, is not eligible for election to the Managing Committee.

6. The summary of his argument is that by virtue of Rule 23(1)(b) of 1959 Rules, as Respondent No.8 was a defaulter, he could not have filed nomination papers by operation of Rule 21-N thereof. He has accordingly submitted that Respondent No.4 ought to have declared election of Respondent No.8 void as the petitioner was able to establish before Respondent No.4 in the election petition that Respondent No.8 was a defaulter, which is a ground for declaration of election void under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 2008.

7. Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting Respondent No.8 has, on the other hand, submitted that Respondent No.4 has rightly rejected the petitioner's election petition in the absence of any determination in accordance with law that Respondent No.8 was a defaulter. He has further submitted that since the petitioner himself had contested the election, he had adequate opportunity to raise objection at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers by the competent authority. He having not raised any such objection and participated in the electi