- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. The respondents have filed Personal Presence Exemption Application sepa rately in all the writ petitions. The ap plications are accompanied by the affi davits of Shri V. N. Mishra, Assistant Cane Commissioner. District Udham Singh Nagar and he is present before this Court. After considering the Exemption Applications accompanied by separate affidavit, all the Exemption Applications are allowed. All Exemption Applications are hereby disposed of accordingly.
(2.) AIL the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed for seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to hold elections of all the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samitis of the State; a writ, order or di rection in the nature of mandamus com manding the respondents not to appoint Administrator in please of the present Committee of Management of various Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samitis in the State and further direct the respondents not to interfere in the working of the present Committee of Management of all Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samitis of the State till constitution of new Committee of Management of respective Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samitis of the State; any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances the case; and award the cost of the petitions to the petitioners. At the time of last election, the term of Committee of Management as prescribed under the Uttarakhand Coop erative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as "principle Act") was 5 years and thereafter the Uttarakhand Coopera tive Societies (Amendment) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as ''amending Act, 2007") was enacted by which the term of Committee of Management was re duced from 5 years to 2 years and it also provided for appointment of Administra tor in case the election of the Commit tee of Management is not held before expiry of term of Committee of Manage ment of the Cooperative Society. Sub section (3) of Section 29 of the Princi pal Act, 2003 further imposes a statu tory duty on the Registrar, Cane Coop erative Societies to complete the elec tions of the Committee of Management of the Cooperative Societies at least two months prior to the expiry of their terms so that newly constituted Committee of Management may replace the old Committees of Management after expiry of their terms. When the Cane Commis sioner did not fix any date for election of all the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Saitis of the State, whose terms had expired by virtue of the Amending Act, 2007, the petitioners passed a resolution request ing the Cane Commissioner to hold elec tions of the Committee of Management of various Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samitis before the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management. The peti tioners sent the proposed resolution to the Cane Commissioner and when the Cane Commissioner failed to hold elec tions of the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samitis, hence all these petitions have been filed before this Court. The Cane Commissioner (re spondent no. 2) has filed a Supplemen tary Affidavit dated 26-07-2008 in which he has filed a schedule of the proposed elections after consultation with the con cerned officers of Cane Department. According to proposed programmes which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the Affidavit, the publication with respect to the determination of election areas would be done by 05-09- 2008; the pre scribed authority would finally publish the determination of election areas by 19-9-2008; and the Cane Commissioner would issue the instructions to the Dis trict Magistrates by 30th September, 2008 for holding the elections.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the peti tioners contended that it has been stated in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit dated 26-07-2008 and affirmed on 25th July 2008 that the Manage ment Committee has to re-determine the areas of election because during the period of earlier election and the current election some members may be reduced and enhanced. At least 10 members in the revenue village should be registered to elect the delegates of the society and in case there are less than 10 members in a village the same should be attached with another Cane Cooperative Society. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fur ther contended that the Administrator-had been appointed in place of the Management Committees. THE admin istrators appointed in place of the elected Management Committee cannot enroll new members and the Administra tor had to conduct elections with the members as on the rolls. THE adminis trator cannot alter the composition of the society. Such powers could only be ex ercised by an elected committee rather than the administrator or the commit tee appointed by the Registrar. Learned Chief Standing Counsel refuted the con tention and contended that the Admin istrators are not going to admit the new members in the Cooperative Societies, but at the time of every election the areas of society has to be re-determined for the election purposes and at least 10 members in the revenue village should be registered to elect the delegates of the society and in case of less than 10 members in a village the same village has to be attached with another village to make the strength of the members to 10 or more than 10. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The provisions of the Principal Act, 2003 and the Amending Act, 2007 did not provide any such condition in which it has been laid down that at least 10 members in revenue village must be registered to elect the delegates of the society. It is also not provided that if there is less than 10 members in a village the same should be attached with another village to make the strength of the village upto 10 members or more. The Chief Standing Counsel could not show us any provision under the Act or the rules in support of his contention. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jr. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala Vs. T. A. Kuttappan and others 2000 (6) SCC127 has held that the Ad ministrator can exercise powers and functions only as may be required in the interests of the Cooperative Society. In that context, he must conduct elections as enjoined under law, that is, he is to conduct elections with the members as on the rolls and by necessary implica tion. A cooperative society is expected to function in a democratic manner through an elected committee of man agement and that committee of man agement is empowered to enroll new members. Enrolment of new members would invalve alteration of the compo sition of the society itself and such a power should be exercised by an elected committee rather than by an administra tor or a committee appointed by the Registrar while the Committee of Man agement is under supersession. Thus, it is apparent that the administrator has no right to get the areas of the society or the village to re-determine for the pur pose of election. Therefore, we are of the view that the administrator ap pointed by the Registrar cannot enroll new members for the election or he can not change the composition of the soci ety. He cannot make delimitation of the election areas by adjusting the revenue villages from one society to another so ciety.;