S.H.A. Raza, J. - (1.) A Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question to this Bench for decision : "Whether either the Registrar or an Election Officer can be refix the schedule of the election process denovo setting at naught the election of persons who remained the only candidate after withdrawal and may be elected after the poll or at the time of declaration of result as delegates, if no, and whether the entire election process, started denovo by a revised time schedule of the election process would become vitiated. The question as to whether Rules 439, 440 and 441 of the Co-operative Societies Rules which clothe the Registrar with unbridled and un-canalised powers and the same are arbitrary."
(2.) The Division Bench while discussing this question indicated that the question as to whether the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. or District Magistrate/Election Officer appointed may revise the election process in such a way to set at naught the election of the person who remained the only candidate after the rejection or withdrawal of nomination paper of other candidates may be declared elected after the poll or the declaration of the result by a revised schedule of the election process or the election if postponed are held again on a different date should start from the disrupted stage, i. e. after the withdrawal of the nomination papers, in respect of the election requires reconsideration because after the date of withdrawal if only one person remains in the field, he has a vested right to become a delegate or a member of the Society. If the power of Registrar under Rules 439, 440 (1) and 441 which authorise him to alter or extend the time schedule, in special circumstances, after recording reasons is stretched, then he can set at naught the entire election process. The question as to whether the aforesaid rules give unbridled and un-canalised power to the Registrar to set at naught the election of a person who was elected unopposed deserves to be reconsidered by a larger Bench. This power is against the democratic norms as prevail in this country.
(3.) A Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Mangal Singh v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P., Lucknow and others, 1982 UPLBEC 46, indicated : "Under sub-rule (1) of the Rule 439 the election is to be organised under the Superintendence direction and control of the Registrar. The power conferred on the Registrar is of a very wide nature. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 439 says that the election in a Co-operative society shall be held on such date or dates as the Registrar may by order fix. Taking these two provisions together, the Registrar has ample authority under these rules to not only change the date of the poll but also to lay down the manner in accordance with which the election have to take place. The expression 'control' has to be given a wide meaning so that it achieves the purpose for which the power had been conferred upon the Registrar The Registrar is over all incharge of the Cooperative Societies. This was the reason that sub-rule (1) of Rule 439 provides that election of a Co-operative Society would be held under the superintendence direction and control of the Registrar. The expression 'election' has been used in this sub-rule of Rule 439 in the wide sense, that is to say, to connote the entire procedure to be gone through to return a candidate. It covers the whole procedure whereby an elected member is returned whether or not it be found necessary to take a poll. Doubtless, in its ordinary meaning it implies some act of choosing, But this term has not been used in the narrow sense. The word 'election' used in this rule bears the wide meaning referring to the entire process which consists of several stages and embraces many steps." "The second proviso to sub-rule 440 empowers the Registrar to allow extension in time schedule. A time schedule of an election does not only consist of the poll. It requires many other things to be done to hold an election to be mentioned therein. It was wrong to suggest that the power of extension granted by the proviso could be exercised by the Registrar only for changing the date of the poll and not of the entire schedule preceding it. The power conferred is for extension of the time schedule. The time schedule does not only talk of the poll. It implies within itself the entire process commencing from the date of filing of the nomination paper to the date of the final election. The expression 'extension' has been deliberately used to bring within its hold the lengthening out of time previously fixed for holding of the elections. This expression lends itself to variety of meanings which must in each case be gathered from the context. It means enlarge than the original limit. If the power conferred by the Proviso is interpreted in the context, one would lead to the conclusion that a restricted meaning, if given, is likely to defeat the object and purpose for which the power has been conferred on the Registrar. The only restriction placed is that the time schedule fixed should not travel beyond the period for which the Administrator has been appointed under Section 29." "Extension of special circumstances is a condition precedent for exercise of power by a Registrar under the said provision Unless there are special circumstances time schedule of an election cannot be postponed. The word 'special circumstances' are wide, comprehensive and flexible and the rule making authority intended them to be so and no court can or ought to lay down any exhaustive definition of these. Circumstances which may be special in one case, in another would not be such. The circumstances stated as special in an order of the Registrar have to be considered as a whole. If they are taken piece meal it would be easy to find that each separate element is insufficient by itself and to conclude therefore that the sum total must also be insufficient. But a factor which, standing alone, would be insufficient may have altogether a different value when found in combination with some other factors. As to what is special circumstance is to be decided by the Registrar and not by this Court." In Hazari Lal Sonkar v. State of U.P. and others, 1985 UPLBEC 234, a Division Bench of this Court held : "Normally whenever any election is to be held by a democratic process under statutory provisions, the election schedule one started should not be disrupted and the election should take place according to the schedule. Section 32 merely says that the election should be held by the general body of a Society in annual meeting and Rule 407 says that the election of the members of the Committee of Management of a Co-operative Society should be held as the last item of the agenda in the annual general meeting of the Society. In the instant case, where an Administrator is running the Society under Section 29, it is his duty to arrange for the reconstitution of the Committee of Management within time provided under Section 29 (6) of the Act. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the holding of elections in accordance with the programme would be a breach of aforesaid provisions of Section 32 and Rule 407 of the Act. Those provisions cannot literally apply to a case where the Society is run by an Administrator.";