IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment clarified the limited grounds for interference with an election process and emphasized that the Registrar's authority does not extend to directing re-scrutiny of rejected nominations.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar, CJ. - The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited is a co-operative society registered under the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976, (for brevity, 'the Act of 1976'). As per its Bye-law No. 32, the management of the affairs of the Bank is to vest in a Board of Directors which would have a term of 5 years. The Bye-law provides that one month before the expiry of the term of the outgoing Board, the Bank must call for a Representative General Meeting to elect new members and such election is to be conducted by an independent body/authority constituted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur (in short, 'the Registrar'), in accordance with the Election Rules of the Bank.

2. However, it appears that there was no election to the Board of Directors of the Bank for a long time which led to the filing of writ petitions, viz., W.P. (C) Nos. 536 and 549 of 2017, before this Court. These writ petitions were allowed by common order dated 06.09.2017, whereby the Registrar was directed to ensure that election to the Board of Directors of the Bank was held within a time frame. Institution of Contempt Case (C) No. 205 of 2017, alleging disobedience to the order dated 06.09.2017, finally resulted in positive action. The Returning Officer, appointed by the Registrar, finalized the list of voters and election of Delegates from different Groups of shareholders/ members was held on 29.04.2018. Thereafter, Notice dated 03.11.2018 was issued by the Bank notifying the elected Delegates that election to the Board of Directors for the term 2017-18 to 2021-22 would be held on 02.12.2018. Protracted litigation relating to the proposed election resulted in the process hanging fire till date.

3. Historic narrative being rather long and tortuous, it would be apposite to recount only facts pertinent to the present adjudication: By Notice dated 12.11.2018, the Returning Officer informed candidates for election to the Board of Directors that at the time of scrutiny of their nomination papers, they should be personally present along with the Proposer and Seconder. The scrutiny was to be taken up on 17.11.2018 for Groups A to F and on 19.11.2018 for Groups G to L. Upon completion of such scrutiny, the Returning Officer issued Notice dated 20.11.2018 recording that the documents submitted by fifteen candidates were in order but five of them were ineligible to contest the election for violation of Bye-law No. 33 of the Bank's Bye-laws. The names of the five ineligible candidates and of the ten eligible candidates were detailed in the Notice dated 20.11.2018.

4. Aggrieved by the rejection of their candidature, the five Delegates who were found ineligible, filed Co-operative Revision No. 3 of 2018 before the Manipur State Co-operative Tribunal at Lamphelpat. The Tribunal disposed of the revision, vide order dated 18.03.2019, quashing/setting aside the Notice dated 20.11.2018 on the ground that it was not sustainable and recording that the parties to the revision had agreed to continue the election from the stage of scrutiny of the nomination papers. Notably, the ten eligible candidates named in the Notice dated 20.11.2018 were not made parties to this revision.

5. Challenging the aforestated order dated 18.03.2019, two amongst the ten eligible candidates named in the Notice dated 20.11.2018, viz., Yumnam Kumar Singh and Th. Sabanam Devi, filed CRP (CRP. Art. 227) No. 17 of 2019 before this Court. This revision was disposed of by order dated 18.12.2019. Therein, this Court observed that the Notice dated 20.11.2018 was found to be unsustainable only in so far as the five ineligible candidates were concerned and that the apprehension of the petitioners, two out of the ten eligible candidates, was misplaced and misconceived as they were found to be qualified. This Court held that there was no manner of indictment in so far as the ten eligible candidates were concerned and that the Tribunal's order could not be made applicable to them. It