V. Bhargava, J. - (1.) These are two connected special appeals filed by the same appellant Pitam Singh against a judgment of a learned single Judge by which a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution presented by Pitam Singh appellant was dismissed and another petition; presented by Khazan Singh respondent, which was presented with Pitam Singh as an opposite party was Partly allowed. Both these petitions related to election of a member of the Board of Directors of Mowana Cooperative Cane Development Union Limited. Pitam Singh appellant in the two appeals and Khazan Singh respondent in the two appeals were the rival claimants. At the time of nomination an objection was taken by Pitam Singh that Khazan Singh was disqualified from being elected as a Director because he was illiterate and literacy was a necessary qualification under the bye-laws framed by the Society. The Returning Officer held that Khazan Singh was literate and was qualified to be nominated as a member. Pitam Singh then approached the Range Co-ordination Officer, Meerut, who held that Khazan Singh was illiterate. Thereupon, Khazan Singh filed a civil suit and the same day he obtained a temporary injunction as a result of which elections were held on the basis that Khazan Singh was to be treated as a properly nominated candidate. Khazan Singh was elected. Subsequently that temporary injunction was vacated and the suit was consigned to the Record Room. The vacation of the temporary injunction was by an order of the Appellate Court as an appeal had been filed against it. As a result of the appellate order, the Range Co-ordination Officer held that the election of Khazan Singh was invalid, so that he set it aside and declared Pitam Singh to be deemed to have been elected unopposed. Khazan Singh challenged this order before higher authorities including the Cane Commissioner whom he moved by an application in revision. The Cane Commissioner, relying upon the judgment of the appellate court in the matter of interim order, dismissed the revision. Thereafter, Khazan Singh filed another suit for-an injunction restraining the opposite\parties from interfering with his result to function as a Director. That suit was ultimately dismissed. Then Khazan Singh moved an application before the Cane Commissioner exercising the powers of Registrar, Co-operative Societies conferred on him under the Co-operative Societies Act for referring this dispute to an arbitrator under Sec. ,43 of the Co-operative Societies Act head with rule 115 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. The Cane Commissioner pointed the District Cane Muzaffarnagar as the arbitrat these circumstances, the first written was filed by Khazan Singh challenging the various orders that had been made against him by the Range Coordination Officer and the Cane Commissioner while Pitam Singh filed the other writ petition challenging the order of the Cane Commissioner referring the dispute to arbitration. The learned single Judge dismissed the petition of Pitam Singh holding that the reference to arbitration was valid. The petition of Khazan Singh was partly allowed and the order of the Range Co-ordination Officer, bolding Khazan Singh's election invalid after the decision by the civil court, as well as the subsequent order made by the Cane Commissioner were quashed by the learned single Judge, though he refrained from quashing the first order of the Range Co-ordination Officer which was passed before the institution of the civil suit holding that Khazan Singh was illiterate and could not be validly nominated. In the judgment, he re-marked that the validity of that order could be decided by the arbitrator.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on these appeals and it appeared to us that, if all the points arising out of these cases were to be decided, it would be necessary to consider the validity of rules 8 and 11 of the Co-operative Societies Rules under which powers of making bye-laws on certain subjects were conferred on the Society. It also appeared to us that there would be need to decide the question whether the bye-laws including the bye-law relating to the qualification of literacy being prescribed for election as a Director were valid or invalid. In view of these circumstances, we directed that special notice be given to the Standing Counsel to appear and put forward the position on behalf of the State. We heard arguments at some length from the Standing Counsel about the validity of rules 8 and 11 of the Co-operative Societies Rules and also about the validity of some of the bye-laws framed by this Society. It later appeared to us, however, that it was not necessary to go into the validity of all these provisions because these cases could be decided only on one aspect viz., the applicability of rule 115 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules and its effect on the various orders in question.
(3.) Rule 115 of the Co-operative Societies Rules lays down the procedure for decision of disputes touching the business of a registered society between members or between a member and a society or its committee or any officer of the society, between the society or its committee and any officer of the society and between two or more registered societies. Counsel for all the parties including the Standing counsel were agreed that the dispute relating to the election as a Director, which capacity in the Rules is described as "Member of the Committee", is a dispute touching the business of the Society. The dispute was between Khazan Singh and Pitam Singh who were both members of the Society. Clearly, therefore, the provisions of rule 115 were applicable. This is further clarified by explanation 3 which defines the scope of the expression "business of a society". This rule is mandatory and lays down the procedure by which such disputes have to be decided. The only manner laid down is that the dispute is to be decided "either by the Registrar or by arbitration and shall for that purpose be referred in writing to the Registrar". In the proceedings with which we are concerned, the first decision by the Returning Officer on the dispute whether Khazan Singh was legible to be elected as a member or not, the later decision by the Range Co-ordination Officer holding that Khazan Singh was illiterate and unqualified and the subsequent decision by him after the decision of the civil appeal that Khazan Singh's election was invalid and Pitam Singh was duly elected were all decisions of disputes touching the business of the Society. Under the Co-operative Societies Rules, all these disputes could only be decided by a reference made to the Registrar when he could either decide them himself or refer them to arbitration. It was pointed out to us that the orders made by the Range Co-ordination Officer were in exercise of powers conferred on him by the bye-laws of the Society. The power of making bye-laws granted to the Society is defined by rule 8 of the Co-operative Societies Rules which specifically mentions that the power is to be exercised subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Consequently, the bye-law conferring a power which conflicts with the power given under rule 115 of the Rules would be invalid on the ground of being in conflict with a rule framed under the Act. We have already said earlier that the only manner laid down for decision of disputes in the Rules was that given in rule 115. Consequently, the bye-laws making a different provision in conflict with it would be invalid. In fact, it is even doubtful whether the Returning Officer at all had the power of giving any decision in this dispute about the validity of the nomination of Khazan Singh. In any case, the two orders made by the Range Co-ordination Officer, first one holding that Khazan Singh was illiterate and could not be nominated and the second one holding Khazan Singh's election invalid and declaring Pitam Singh elected, were without any jurisdiction. Against the second one of these orders, Khazan Singh had gone up in revision to the Cane Commissioner exercising powers of the Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules and that revision was dismissed by the Cane Commissioner. An order made by the Cane Commissioner in a revision against the order of the Range Co-ordination Officer could not be held to be a decision of the dispute under rule 115 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. We have gone through the order made by the Commissioner on that application made by Khazan Singh and it specifically mentions that the grievance before him, was made against the order of the Range Co-ordination Officer and that there was no direct approach to him under Rule 115 to decide this dispute. We are unable to accept the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant that that order should be treated as a decision of the dispute by the Registrar under rule 115 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. The only order under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules validly made was the subsequent order by the Cane Commissioner referring the dispute for arbitration to the District Cane Officer, Muzaffarnagar. Learned counsel challenged the correctness of this order on the further ground that the dispute could not be referred to that officer because of some provision contained in the bye-laws of this Society which required that the matter should go for arbitration directly to some other authority viz, the Cane Officer of the district of Meerut without any reference to the provisions of rule 115 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. That bye-law could again in no way curtail the powers of the Registrar under rules 115 and 116 of the Cooperative Societies Rules under which he could competently appoint any person of his choice as an arbitrator. For these reasons, we have come to the view that the learned single Judge was quite right in quashing the orders of the Range Co-ordination Officer and the Cane Commissioner which he did and upholding the order of reference to the arbitrator for giving an award.;