Back
1981 Supreme(All) 394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. C. Agrawal, V. K. Khanna
SHIV MANGAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, LUCKNOW - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 11367 Of 1981
Decided On : 09/14/1981
A.KUMAR, V.N.Khara
The Registrar has the power to extend the time schedule for the election of delegates of the members of a co-operative society under Rule 440 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, in special circumstances.
Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - ELECTION - EXTENSION OF TIME SCHEDULE - POWER OF REGISTRAR - SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - U. P. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1968 (U. P. ACT 11 OF 1968), SEC. 29(4), 113 - U. P. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES, 1968, R. 439, 440, 441, 443.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the U. P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., challenged the order of the Registrar extending the time schedule for the election of delegates of the members of the bank. The petitioner argued that the Registrar had no power to extend the time schedule and that he was deprived of a right to be declared elected unopposed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Registrar had the power to extend the time schedule for the election under Rule 440 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968. The court interpreted the expression "special circumstances" in the proviso to Rule 440 broadly and held that the reasons given by the Registrar for the extension were relevant and adequate.
Issues: 1. Whether the Registrar had the power to extend the time schedule for the election of delegates of the members of the bank? 2. Whether the reasons given by the Registrar for the extension were special circumstances?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Registrar had the power to extend the time schedule for the election under Rule 440 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968. The court interpreted the expression "special circumstances" in the proviso to Rule 440 broadly and held that the reasons given by the Registrar for the extension were relevant and adequate. 2. The court held that the reasons given by the Registrar for the extension were special circumstances. The court considered the circumstances mentioned as special in the order of the Registrar as a whole and found that they were relevant for the purpose for which the power of postponement of the time schedule had been ordered.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition.
( 2 ) FOR deciding the points raised, we may take facts from writ petition of Sheo Mangal Singh v. Registrar Co-operative societies and others ( of Ballia ),
( 3 ) SHEO Mangal Singh was a member of the general body of the U. P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. He was also a member of the U. P. State Co-operative land Development bank Ltd. , Ballia branch, Ballia. The U. P. State Co-operative i and Development Bank Ltd. is a notified bank under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 29 of the U. P. Co-operavite societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act. The terms of the Committee of Management of the U. P. State Co-operative land Development Bank Ltd. , Ballia expired on 30-6-1979. As by that time elections had not been held, an Administrator under sub-section (4) of section 29 of the Act was appointed by an order dated 1-12-1980, the Registrar directed all the District magistrates to hold elections of the delegates of the branches out of the members of the U. P. State Co-operative Land Development bank Ltd. , oh 9-2-1981 in accordance with law. The election Officer notified the election programme and the last date for filing the nomination was 1-2-1981. The Registrar, Co-operative societies stayed the election to the future date to be notified later. On 20-4-1981, the Registrar fixed 7-7-1931 as the date for the elections in pursuance of the notification issued by the district Magistrate. 25-6-81 was the date fixed for filing the nomination papers. On that date the petitioner filed his nomination for being elected as the delegate of the members of the Ballia branch of the Land Development Bank Ltd. After scrutiny the nomination papers of the petitioner was found to be ip order. No objections were filed to his nomination. However the, Registrar in exercise of the power conferred by R. 440 of the Rules allowed extension in time schedule of the Co-operative Societies and fixed 7-9-1981 as the date for Roll of the Branch and 29-7-81 for apex. In view of the change of the time schedule, the Election officer, as was required by Rule 441 displayed the following programme of election : (I) the date for display of provisional voters list.-21-8-81 (II) the date time and place for filing objections and their disposal-26-8-81 (III ) the date for display of final voters list-28-8-81 (IV ) the date time and place for 61ing nominations-31-8-81 (V ) the date, time and place for withdrawal of nominations-31-8-81 (VI) the date, time and place for allocation of election symbols and display of final nominations-3-9-81 (VII ) the date, time and place of poll-7-9-81
( 4 ) CHALLENGING the order of the Registrar dated 8-7-1981 extending the time schedule of the election and refixing the date of poll, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. His case was that be had filed the nomination papers previously in accordance with the time schedule notified by the Election Officer and as on date of the filing of the nomination paper no other candidate had filed his nomination, the petitioner was entitled to be declared elected unopposed. The Regisrar had no power under R. 440 to allow extension in time schedule (of election) of the Co-operative societies. He could at the most only change the date of the poll and not for filing of the nomination papers. The petitioner alleged that by the extension in time schedule of the elections, the petitioner had been deprived of a right which was illegal.
( 5 ) WE have heard Sri A. Kumar and other learned counsel who appeared in support of their writ petitions as welt as Sri V. N. Khare, the Chief Standing Counsel of the State of U. P.
( 6 ) BEFORE dealing with the points raised we wish to mention some of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules.
( 7 ) SECTION 3 of the Act authorises the State Government to appoint a person to be the Registrar of the Co-operative S
