An election cannot be set aside on wholly technical grounds, especially when it has not been shown that because of the technical departure from the statutory provisions or the rules the result of the election has been materially affected.

M.R.Sharma, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the shareholders and Directors of the Mandi Nihal Singhwala Tappa Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Nihal Singhwala, Tehsil Moga, district Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as the Society).

2. The society has as its members some co-operative societies which are functioning in the area of operation of the Society as also some individual members. The State Government has also subscribed to the share capital of the Society. The Committee of the Society consists of six Directors to be elected after a period of three years. The individual members elect three Directors and the remaining three are elected by the member societies. The last election of the Society was held on May 4, 1973, in which the petitioners and Sarvshri Jaswant Singh, Sant Singh and Gurdev Singh were elected as Directors. The term of that Committee was to expire in the first week of May, 1976.

3. It is alleged that the old Committee did not make arrangements for holding the elections 90 days before the date of the expiry of its term as laid down in section 26 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). This matter came up before the Committee of the Society on March 17, 1976, and it was decided to consider the arrangements for the election of the Directors to be held on April 29, 1976. Some objections raised by the petitioners were over-ruled. In that very meeting, the question regarding the enrolment of new members was considered. The petitioners raised objections that before the new members were accepted, their names and other particulars should be indicated. The objection was also turned down by a majority vote. In that very meeting the President and the Manager of the Committee were directed to carve out new zones for the election and to submit the proposals to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for his approval. These proposals were duly made and the Assistant Registrar exercising the powers of the Registrar gave approval to the scheme of zones and the election programme.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that a large number of individuals have been accepted as members of the Society because of which the party of the petitioners has been rendered into a minority party. The other objections raised are that under section 26(1A) of the Act, it is the function of the Executive Committee of a Co-operative Society to carve out the zones and that this power could not have been delegated to the President and the Manager of the Society, and that under the Rules only the Manager was competent to frame the election programme and to submit it for approval to the authorised Registrar and as against this the programme has been framed by the President and the Manager both acting together.

5. After giving a careful consideration to the arguments addressed at the Bar, I am of the view that none of the grounds of challenge urged on behalf of the petitioners is such on the basis of which the election should be set aside.

6. In the very nature of things a co-operative society is a democratic institution and its decisions are taken in accordance with the majority vote of the shareholders. Section 23 of the Act provides that final authority in a co-operative society shall vest in the general body of the members but where a co-operative society consists of the prescribed number of members the general body may elect a smaller body, which in turn may transact the day to day business of the co-operative society. It cannot be disputed that acceptance of new persons as members of the Society is a recognised business of the Society. If the majority of members were of the view that new members should be added, the petitioners who were in minority could not claim with any justification that new members should not be accepted and it cannot be urged on their behalf that the action of the Committee should be declared illegal merely because it has decide