A.D.KOSHAL,J. - (1.) THE area of operation of the Ferozepore Cantt. Primary Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited, Ferozepore, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and is hereinafter referred to as the Society, was divided under Sub-section (1a) of Section 26 of that Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') for the purpose of election of members of its committee into six zones. In all 29 persons filed their nomination-papers for election to the committee from the six zones, as shown in the following table: Zone Number of candidates and the number, description of some of them. 1. 6 including petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 9. 2. 6 including petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 10. 3. 8 including petitioner No, 3 and respondent No 11. 4. 7 including petitioner No. 4 and respondents Nos. 12 and 13. 5. 3 including respondent No. 14. 6. 4 including petitioner No. 5 and respondent" No. 15. Shri Sohan Singh Dosanjh, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ferozepore (respondent No. 5) scrutinized the nomination papers on the 3rd of June, 1974, at his office and accepted the nomination papers of respondents Nos. 9 to 15, all of whom are members of the Ruling Congress Party, rejecting those filed by the remaining 22 candidates including the five petitioners.
(2.) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the five petitioners have challenged the election of respondents Nos. 9 to 13 and 15 from Zones Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 on various grounds out of which those pressed before me are: (a) Respondent No. 5 acted under the influence of Shri Nasib Singh Gill, Deputy Speaker. Punjab Vidhan Sabha, Chandigarh (respondent No. 7) and Shri Balmukand, a Congress member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly (respondent No. 8 ). (b) At the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers respondent No. 5 did not disclose to any of the petitioners that any objections bad been made to the nomination papers of any of them and without holding an enquiry into any such objections, he published a list of candidates whose names had been accepted or rejected. The failure of respondent No. 5 to hold an enquiry and to give an opportunity to the petitioners to contest any objections in respect of their respective nomination papers vitiated the proceedings held by him and his orders refecting such papers inasmuch as it contravenes Clause 6 of Appendix 'c' to the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rule, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Appendix ). The State of Punjab and its officers in the Co-operative Department have been impleaded in the petition as respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and are represented by Shri H. S. Bhullar, Advocate appearing for the Advocate-General, Punjab. The Society is arraigned as respondent No. 6 and its counsel Shri Laxmi Grover also represents respondents Nos. 7 to 15. It may be stated here that no return has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, 6 to 13 and 15. However, during the course of arguments the case of the petitioners was contested on behalf of all the respondents.
(3.) IN order to appreciate the respective stands of the parties in relation to points canvassed before me, reference may be made to the contents of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the petition and of a portion of paragraph 11 thereof. The same are set out below for facility of reference; "9. That Shri Sohan Singh Dosanjh was transferred from Faridkot to Ferozepore about 10 or 12 days before the election at the instance of Shri Balmukand, M. L. A. and Shri Nasib Singh Gill, Deputy Speaker. "that Shri Sohan Singh Dosanjh was the Returning Officer for election to the Ferozepore Cantt. Primary Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. Ferozepore Cantt. The time for scrutiny was from 9-00 A. M. to 12. 30 P. M. The petitioner Dharam Singh along with Shri Mohinder Singh Sayanwala, M. L. A. went to the office of Shri Sohan Singh Dosanjh at about 10. 00 A. M. and learnt from the office that Shri Sohan Singh Dosanjh had been taken by Shri Gulwant Singh, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies Ferozepore to Shri Balmukand M. L. A. and Shri Nasib Singh Gill. Shri Sohan Singh Dosanjh returned to his office along with Shri Balmukand, M. L. A. at about 12,00 (noon ). The Returning Officer never told any of the petitioners that there is any objection against any of the petitioners and without holding an enquiry, he pasted a list of candidates whose names had been accepted and rejected. According to that list, the names of respondents Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 had been accepted and the nominations of all other candidates including petitioners Nos. 1-6 had been rejected. Later on, however, Shri Bakhshish Singh made a complaint to Shri Nasib Singh Gill that he has been a supporter of Shri Nasib Singh Gill throughout and he should have been declared elected as a Director. So a novel method was adopted by striking out the word 'rejected" against the name of the respondent No. 13-Shri Bakhshish Singh and according to that arrangement from Zone No. 4, the nomination papers of respondent No. 12 Shri Attar Singh and respondent No. 13 Shri Bakhshish Singh were shown to be accepted and later on Shri Attar Singh, respondent No. 12 was shown to have withdrawn from the contest and thus on 3-6-1974 the entire election was completed by this manipulation and respondents Nos. 9, 10 11, 13, 11 and 15 were shown to be elected. "10. That petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 asked the Returning Officer the grounds on which the nominations had been rejected and the Returning Officer said that they should make applications for supply of copies and they will get the copies in due course. "11. That the orders of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination papers of petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 are illegal, void and inoperative inasmuch as under Rule 6 to Appendix 'c' to the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963, the objections could be disposed of only after making an enquiry and no enquiry was held in the present case and no opportunity was given to any of the petitioners to make his defence. . . . . . . . . " The reply of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to the petition consists of an affidavit filed by respondent No. 5. Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of that reply may also be reproduced with advantage: "9. In reply to para No. 9, it is submitted that deponent joined as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ferozepore on 23-5-1974 and rest of the para is denied. Further allegations with the exception that the deponent was the returning officer for the election of the Bank, are denied. Everything was done on merits. "10. In reply tp para No. 10 it is submitted that the scrutiny was made in the presence of the candidates and result of the scrutiny was announced. Objections were duly asked for and were preferred by the candidates However, the copies of the grounds on which the nomination had been rejected, could be had from the office according to the procedure, which they never adopted. "11. The allegations made in para No. 11 of the writ petition are denied. The orders of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination papers of petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 are legal, valid and in accordance with Rule 6 to Appendix 'c' of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963. The objections were disposed of after making enquiries and proper opportunity was given to the petitioners to make the defence. Everybody and individual was asked whether they have any objection to the nomination papers and some of the persons who made the objections in writing, their objections were considered in their presence and disposed of in accordance with law. The place, date and time of the scrutiny was specified for hearing the objections and proper reasons were given for rejecting the nomination papers on the nomination papers itself. After the scrutiny a list of validly nominated candidates was exhibited in the Registered office of the Society and other common places in the area of the Society. " The denial contained in these three paragraphs of the allegations made by the petitioners in the corresponding paragraphs of the petition is dearly evasive, the following allegations not having been specifically denied; (i) That on the 3rd of June, 1974, respondent No. 5 had been taken by Shri Gulwant Singh to respondents Nos. 7 and 8 and that he returned to his office at about 12 noon. (ii) That respondent No. 5 never told any of the petitioners that any objection had been made against any of them. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have no doubt stated: "the objections were disposed of after making enquiries and proper opportunity was given to the petitioners to make the defence. Everybody and individual was asked whether they have any objection to the nomination papers and some of the persons who made the objections in writing, their objections were considered in their presence and disposed of in accordance with law. " They have, however, conveniently refrained from detailing the nature of the "enquiries" and of the "proper opportunity to the petitioners to make the defence". If any enquiries had really been made and the petitioner concerned had been asked to meet the objections made against his nomination paper, there is no reason why this should not have been stated in the return in so many words. A reference to the orders passed in relation to the nomination papers of the petitioners also indicates that no opportunity was made available to them to meet any objections raised against their nomination papers. Those orders are set out in the table appearing below: Zone Petitioner Order on the nomina- number number tion paper 1 1 Papers rejected on the basis of defaulter cer tificate of the proposerhe himself is in default to P, L. M. B. As such not eligible. 2 2 Rejected. Did not dis close his membership of the Society. II- No clearance certi ficate furnished. 3 3 Rejected -- clearance certificate more than 6 months' old -- up-to date produced at the spot -- proposer in de fault of P. L. M: B. 4 4 Rejected. Candidate in default to parent Society and no clearance certificate. 6 5 Rejected. Proposer in active member of the P. L. M. B: If objections had been put to the petitioner concerned, the order would have stated so as also the defence taken and the reason for its rejection. The complete absence of these details in each of the orders supports the stand taken by the petitioners, especially when the evasive denial made by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in their return is taken into consideration. I thus hold that no enquiry into the objections presented against any of the nomination papers filed by the petitioners was made by respondent No. 5 at the time of scrutiny thereof. ;