CWP No. 3144 of 2012. Case: Karan Singh Vs Registrar Co-operative Societies. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | CWP No. 3144 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. S.S. Dalal, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. Nitin Kaushal, AAG, Haryana and Mr. Pardeep Solath for Respondent No. 4 |
| Judges | Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. |
| Issue | Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 - Sections 28, 29, 31 |
| Judgement Date | October 21, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
1. The petitioners are the elected members of the Panipat District Cooperative Labour and Construction Federation Ltd. (for short the "Society") who have challenged the notice dated 08.02.2012 for holding the election of the office bearers on 24.02.2012, on the ground that no proper agenda has been circulated and the persons who cannot participate in the process of election have been summoned. According to the petitioners, a meeting was held on 06.02.2012 for holding the election of the office bearers of the Society and out of 8 members, all the 5 petitioners, who have attended the meeting, visited the office on the same day, but the meeting was not conducted because the Presiding Officer wanted to help the minority group. It is also alleged that the meeting is now fixed for 24.02.2012 and the letters have been sent on 08.02.2012 which is in violation of Rule 110 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Rules, 1989 (for short the "Rules"). It is alleged by the petitioners that the notice dated 08.02.2012 has not only been issued to all the elected members, but also to three office bearers who are the nominees of the Government, including the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies. It is submitted that as per Section 29 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (for short the "Act") the Government has no. right to nominate its office bearers as members of the managing committee if it has less than Rs. 1 lakh as share money in the society.
2. While issuing notice of motion on 21.02.2012, this Court ordered that in the meanwhile the meeting may go on but its result would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.
3. After notice, reply has been filed by the official respondents as well as by the society. The stand taken by the society is that meeting on 06.02.2012 was postponed not because of the alleged support by the Presiding Officer to the minority group but it was postponed because the Presiding Officer could not reach in time as the car in which she was travelling broke down on the way and ultimately she reached the venue by 12.30 noon but by that time, the present petitioners made the application for the purpose of postponement of the meeting. On their application, the meeting was postponed which was ordered to be fixed for 24.02.2012. It is also submitted that as per bye law No. 26 of the Society, the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society of the Department is a permanent member and...
To continue reading
Request your trial