DEVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 11, are members of the Bhurthala Mander Agricultural Service Society, (hereinafter called the Society). It is registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, and has about three hundred members. The management of the Society vests in a managing committee consisting of five members and this committee has to be elected every year. In accordance with the rules, the President of the Society, drew up an election programme for the election of the members and office bearers of the managing committee. According to this programme, nominations for membership or for the post of any of the office bearers were to be filed upto 10.00 A.M. on 26th April, 1970. The scrutiny was to take place between 10.00 A.M. and 11.00 A.M. and withdrawal was allowed between 11.00 A.M. and 11.30 A.M. The voting, if necessary, was to take place between 12.00 P.M. and 4.00 P.M. on the same day in the office of the Society. It is alleged that a notice regarding this election programme was duly exhibited at the registered office of the Society and one copy of the notice was also pasted at the village thai Apart from making proclamation by beat of drum in the village through one Kaka Singh on 8th April, 1970, one copy of the election programme was also submitted to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, respondent No. 2, who after according his approval, returned it to the petitioners on the 17th April, 1970. Respondent No. 3, Hardyal Singh Dhillon, Sub-Inspector Co-operative Societies, was appointed as the Returning Officer to conduct this election. On the appointed day, six nomination papers only were filed, five by the petitioners and the sixth by respondent No. 5. The nomination papers of respondent No. 5 were rejected and as there were five seats, the five petitioners were declared to have been elected to this office. The result of this election was duly recorded by respondent No. 3, in the proceedings book of the Society. It appears that after the alleged declaration of the result of the election, 33 persons including respondent Nos. 9 and 10 filed a joint application before respondent No. 3, stating therein that, 15 days notice for the holding of the annual general meeting had not been issued and published in accordance with law, and as such, the election held by him was illegal, and void. Respondent No. 3, accepted this contention and recorded another order in the proceedings book of the Society holding that the election already held was void and arrangements for the fresh election may be made. The petitioners have challenged the action of respondent No. 3, in recording an order in the proceedings book of the Society holding their election to be void, inter alia on the ground that after the result of the election, respondent No. 3, was no longer invested with any jurisdiction to act as an Election Commission and set aside the election, the result of which he had himself declared.

(2.) There appears to be prima facie force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. A Returning Officer is appointed for a limited purpose; namely, to hold the election. After the election has been held and the result of the election declared, he becomes functus officio. It is none of his duty to receive representations against the manner in which the election has been held. Nor is he empowered to hold that the election held already was not in accordance with law. The persons elected to a public office get invested with a right to hold that office for the statutory period. The only exception to this rule is that their election may be challenged by an election petition or other proceedings which may be provided under the statute itself. It is admitted case of the parties that the election of the petitioners had not been challenged by adopting any of the modes prescribed by law. Under these circumstances, the order of respondent No. 2 annulling the election of the petitioners deserves to be set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the election was held on 26th April, 1970 and the elected members were to hold office for a maximum period of 18 months whereafter fresh election was to be held. According to him, since the tenure of the petitioners has expired, the petition filed by them has become infructuous. If the persons elected to a public office are vested with a right to hold that office for the statutory period, then no illegal action of a busy body can be allowed to whittle that right. The nomination papers of the petitioners were accepted. There being five properly proposed and seconded candidates against the five seats only, it was not necessary for the Returning Officer to call upon the voters to cast their votes. Once this stage is reached, it is not open to the Returning Officer to set at naught the right accruing to the petitioners because of the acceptance of their nomination papers. He was duty bound to declare the petitioners election. In this view of the matter, the argument advanced by Mr. Sarin, that the term of 18 months for which the petitioners could hold office as elected members of the managing committee had expired and the petition had become infructuous, also loses all importance. If the Returning Officer had not given any declaration about the result of the election of the petitioners, then it is a fit case in which directions could be issued to do this now. I order accordingly.