BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. In this writ petition, the following reliefs have been prayed for:-

“(i) Appropriate Writ/Directions to quash and set aside the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, dismissing the review and the appeal filed by the petitioners and declaring the elections of Panch Shila Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., held on 11.3.2007 to be valid and legal; (ii) Appropriate Writ/Directions to quash and set aside the election of Panch Shila Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., held on 11.3.2007;

(iii) Appropriate Writ/Directions to debar the respondent Nos. 5 to 17 from standing for elections of the said society as being ineligible and for deliberately making false statements regarding their eligibility for the elections held on 11.03.2007; (iv) Appropriate Writ/Directions to appoint administrator for management of Panch Shila Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., till fresh elections are held; (v) Any other appropriate writ/directions against the respondents as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances and costs be awarded.”

2. As will be apparent from the reliefs sought, the petitioners are essentially challenging the validity of the elections held on 11.03.2007 of the office bearers of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.3 society. The petitioners claim that respondents 5 to 17 were disqualified from contesting the elections. We may point out, at this juncture, that during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent Nos. 14 and 24 passed away and the learned counsel for the petitioner has dropped them from the array of parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken up two grounds in support of the claim that the respondents 5 to 17 were disqualified from contesting the elections held on 11.03.2007. The first ground taken is that the said respondents were members of the previous Managing Committee and that the said Managing Committee had not completed the audit of accounts of the society within the time stipulated. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said respondents incurred the disqualification set out in Section 35 (7)(d) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as „the said Act?). The second point urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the said respondents stood

disqualified by virtue of bye-law 24 (b) of the bye-laws of the respondent No.3 society.

3. The petitioners had filed an appeal under Section 112 of the said Act taking, inter alia, the aforesaid pleas, before the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal. The respondent No.3 society and the other respondents had taken the plea of maintainability of an appeal under Section 112 before the said Tribunal. The Delhi Co-operative Tribunal rejected the plea of maintainability raised by the respondents in the following words:-

“As regards the maintainability of appeal U/S 112, it is true that the appellants are not challenging an order of any authority but are challenging the election as provided in clause (d) of Section 112 read with Section 35. This Tribunal has held in many cases that the Act provides for two remedies for challenging elections, one under Section 70 and the other U/S 112(d) and accordingly this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.”

4. On the merits of the matter, as regards the point that the audit of accounts had not been conducted within the time stipulated under the Act and thereby some of the respondents had incurred the disqualification under Section 35(7)(d) of the said Act, the Tribunal, rejecting such a plea, held as under:-

“As regards the objection of the appellants regarding the past managing committee members being dis-qualified to contest the election because of their failure to get the audit of their accounts audited in time this appears to be incorrect. We have checked up the position of audit from the RCS Office and it is understood that the audit for the year 2004-05