R.S.MONGIA,J. - (1.) AJMER Singh, petitioner, and respondents No. 4 to 10 are the members of the Ghilaur Co-operative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Ghilaur, District Karnal (hereinafter called 'the Society'), a Society registered under the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act. Election to the Managing Committee of the Society was held on June 29, 1995. The petitioner was one of the contestants. However, he was not successful in the election whereas respondents No. 4 to 10 were declared elected. An election petition was filed by the petitioner and another person on July 31, 1995, under Section 102 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, against the elected members (Respondents No. 4 to 10), which was referred for decision to Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karnal. It was alleged that there had been many irregularities in holding the election.
(2.) THE Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karnal, issued notice to the respondents in the election petition for August 16, 1995. On August 16, 1995, when the respondents appeared, counsel for respondents No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 contended that the election petition was not filed within the period of limitation and, therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed. No written statement had been filed on behalf of any of the respondents. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, on the same day held that the election petition was time-barred. In spite of that, the election petitioners were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their plea regarding the alleged irregularities committed at the time of the election. Since the election petitioners did not produce any evidence, the election petition was dismissed. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karnal, dated August 16, 1995, dismissing the election petition is reproduced as under : ''Today on 16.8.1995 at the time of hearing Sh. B.R. Saini, counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 contended that present election petition is not within a period of limitation. Therefore, this petition may not be accepted for hearing. He invited my attention to Section 102 of Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, wherein it is clearly mentioned that Election Petition should have been filed within a period of 30 days, after expiry of these days petition may not be accepted for hearing. It is correct that present petition is not within the period of limitation, in spite of that petitioners were given opportunity to produce the solid proof of irregularities committed at the time of election. Shri Ajmer Singh and Tejpal Singh petitioners have not produced any such proof to prove any irregularities at the time of election. They complained only against the salesman. The counsel on behalf of respondents contended that the petitioners only want to delay election process so that society could not work in proper manner because petitioners have prayed for stay of co-option of Society dated 17.8.1995. Above mentioned case heard in detail. The petitioners could not produce any proof to prove that election was not conducted in accordance with rules. Therefore, this election petition is rejected. Announced.'' Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. While issuing notice of motion for today on September 19, 1995, we had ordered that the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karnal, be personally present. In pursuance to that order, he has put in appearance. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that an election petition is to be tried in accordance with the principles of the Civil Procedure Code viz., a written-statement is to be filed by the respondents and after filing replication, if any, the issues are to be struck, then both sides are to be afforded opportunity to lead evidence and thereafter arguments are to be heard. On August 16, 1995, which was the first date on which the respondents appeared, no written-statement was filed and only an oral objection was taken by counsel for some of the respondents that the petition was time-barred. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the same. No issues were struck. The date was not fixed for leading any evidence. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that in fact the election petition was not time barred as under Section 102(4) of the Act, the election petition could be filed within 30 days from the date of the declaration of the result of the election. Since the result of the election was declared on June 29, 1995 the election petition could be filed on or before July 29, 1995, but since 29th and 30 July, 1995, were holidays, the election petition was filed on July 31, 1995, which was within limitation.
(3.) WE had asked the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, as to how the petition was time-barred and how was it held to be time-barred without there being any written-statement, or issues framed or affording opportunity of leading evidence to the parties. We further asked him that if at all the election petition was time-barred, how was it that on the first date, the petitioner was asked to lead evidence in support of the allegations in the petition and that too without framing any issues and asking the respondents to file written-statement.;