Back
2004(8) Supreme 68
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, P.K. Balasubramanyan & Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar, JJ.
N. Balaji -Appellant
versus
Virendra Singh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6522 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8717 of 2004)
Decided on 5-10-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.B. Upadhyay and Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Advocates.
For the Respondents : V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Anil Amrit and Sanjeev Sachdeva, Advocates.
Held : Relevant provision of Section 74(1) read with Section 74(1)(C) of the Act of 1984 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if any dispute arises amongst the members in connection with the election of any officer of the multi-State cooperative society (officer, includes the member of the Board by virtue of definition of Officer in Sec.3(o) of the old Act), it shall be referred to the Central Registrar for decision and no Court has jurisdiction to entertain any such or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. Thus whenever there is a dispute among the members in connection with the election of a member of the Board, it shall be referred to Central Registrar for decision. Clause (d) of Section 75 postulates that the election dispute of the member of the Board of a multi-State Cooperative Society is to be raised within one month from the date of declaration of the result of the election. Sub-s.(3) of Sec.75 authorizes the Central Registrar for the sufficient cause to admit a dispute after the expiry of the period of limitation if the Central Registrar is satisfied of the sufficiency of the cause of raising the dispute beyond the period of limitation. In the present case it is apparent that the dispute has been raised prior to conduct and declaration of the result of election by the appellant by making representation on 23.7.2002 and 7.8.2002 and on other dates regarding validity of the electoral roll for the conduct of the election and on 21.8.2002 after the election has been held. The appellant approached the Delhi High Court by way of writ petition also. (Para 9)
What was filed on 30.4.2003 before the Central Registrar was only a consolidated dispute petition incorporating all the objections to the election raised by him from time to time. The petition dated 30.4.2003 has to be read in continuation of the several representations and objection petitions filed earlier, from time to time and cannot be considered to be a separate and independent petition. The petition dated 30.4.2003 is a consolidated version of various grounds raising dispute to election in required format so as to facilitate the tribunal to adjudicate and decide all the questions raised after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all parties. An election dispute raised before or referred to the Central Registrar does not attract application of any rigorous rules of pleadings in a the civil suit under the Civil Procedure Code or the election petition filed under the provisions of Representation of People Act 1951. (Para 9)
On the facts emerging in the case, we find that the discretion which has been exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case in condoning the delay by the Central Registrar is in accordance with the established principles of law and justice and it was not a fanciful or arbitrary exercise of discretion. The exercise of the discretionary power can be interfered by the High Court only if the order passed is violative of some fundamental or basic principle of justice and fair play or suffers from any patent or flagrant error. We do not find any such element present vitiating the exercise of power vesting in the Central Registrar to condone the delay and entertain an election dispute. (Para 12)
JUDGMENT
P.P. Naolekar, J.-Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 3706 of 2003. National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India Ltd. (NCCF for short) is a duly registered Society under the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ) and before the Act came into force by the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. A notice for the election of the Directors of respondents Society was published on 12.6.2002 under the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Society Act 1984 (hereinafter to be called as the Old Act ) and the rules framed thereunder. On 23.7.2002 appellant made a representation/objection to the concerned authorities contending therein that the defaulting members should not be given voting rights in the election of the Directors. A list of eligible voters for the ensuing election of the Directors was published. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the voters list published, which according to the appellant, contains the names of the persons who were defaulters, sent a representation dated 7.8.2002 to the Minister requesting him to de-list the names of any ineligible voters from the voters list. On 12.8.2002, the appellant again sent a representation to the Central Registrar to de-list the names of the non-eligible persons from the voters list. It is the case of the appellant that in spite of the representation having been made for delisting the names of the non-eligible persons from the voters list, the election was held on the basis of the electoral roll published on 17.8.2002 and respondents 1, 2 and 3 were declared elected as Directors of the Society. On 21st August, 2002 the appellant again sent a representation to Agriculture and Cooperation Minister, Govt. of India, New Delhi and raised therein an election dispute. The representation inter alia stated that the voters list has been irregularly prepared; non-eligible members have been included in the voters list. The nominations filed by the candidates were proposed and seconded by the members who do not belong to the same zone. The proposers and seconders are not the valid voters as they have not paid the minimum share capital before 15.7.2002 to NCCF. The delegate having a valid vote, has only one vote in the same zone and not in the other zone, according to Section 22 of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 1984 and Bye Law 19 (C) of NCCF Act. Instead of one vote, according to the Bye Laws, each delegate has cast five votes which is illegal and untenable and therefore directions would be necessary for each delegate to cast only one vote, according to the Bye Laws etc.
3. The appellant s representation, raising the election dispute was not taken note of by the Minister concerned or any of the officer of the Society and therefore the appellant approached the High Court of Delhi by filing a Writ Petition which was registered as C.W.P. No. 6504 of 2002.
4. The High Court vide its order dated 5.12.2002 has noted that the petitioner has challenged the election to the Board of Directors on 17th of August 2002 for which he claims to have made a representation under Section 92 of the relevant Act to the Minister concerned but no action is taken and therefore the petition is filed for quashing the election. However, the limited prayer is made by the counsel, that the directions be issued to the Minister to examine the petitioner s representation and dispose it of within a time frame. Accordingly, directions have been issued by the Court to the concerned Authority/Minister to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21st of August 2002 and pass appropriate order within one month from the date of the receipt of the order of the Court.
5. When the matter went back to the Minister, Ministry of Agriculture has taken the stand that Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 2002 provides for settlement of disputes incl
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
