- (1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Ramchandra has prayed for the following reliefs:- 1. that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order Ex.4 dated 26.3.1992 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bikaner as also the order Ex. 5 dated 28.3.1992 passed by the Election Officer to conduct the elections on 7.4.1992 may be quashed in toto and all proceedings in pursuance of these orders may also be treated as cancelled. 2. that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bikaner dated 22.1.1992 as also the appellate order Ex. 3 dated 12.3.1992 passed by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jodhpur may also be quashed and any appropriate writ, order or directions may be given which may meet the ends of justice in the case.
(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are : that the petitioner himself claims to be the Chairman of the Panchu Ram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Village Panchu, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner. He has submitted that he received a memorandum of more than l//5th members of the General Body i.e. 416 members out of the total 1600 members to convene a general meeting of the General Body of the Society. It is alleged that in pursuance of this memorandum, a meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society was held on 7.2.1991 and in that meeting, a resolution was passed that the meeting of the General Body of the Society be held on 23.2.1991. In the meanwhile, on 20.2.1991, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative, Societies, Bikaner informed that the resolution of the Managing Committee of the Society dated 7.2.1991 to convene a meeting of the General Body of the Society on 23.2.1991 is set-aside in exercise of his powers conferred under s. 32 (1) of the Rajasthan Co- operative Societies Act, 1965 (for Short 'the Act' ). However, inspite of it, a meeting of the General Body of the Society was held on 23.2.1991 and in that meeting, the respondents No. 4 to 9, who were earlier elected as members of the Managing Committee of the Society in its General Body meeting held on 12/16.1.1991 were expelled from the membership of the Society because they were responsible for the back-door-entry. According to the petitioner, as per s. 29 of the Act, to decide about the membership of a particular person, the General Body of the Society is the final authority. He has submitted that though the General Body of the Society has decided to expel respondents No.4 to 9 from the membership of the Society in exercise of its powers under s. 29 of the Act but despite this, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bikaner issued a notice on 6.3.1991 to show cause as to why the resolution passed on 23.2.1991 in the meeting of the General Body of the Society can be not revoked and cancelled under s. 32 (1) of the Act. When such a notice was issued, a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2612 of 1991 was filed before this Court and that writ petition came to be decided by a learned single Judge of this Court vide his order dated 4.9.1991. While deciding that writ petition, the learned single Judge has passed the following order: - "In this view of the matter, I do not find that there is any substance in this writ petition. However, it is directed that in case, the petitioner files his objections before the Deputy Registrar, the Deputy Registrar would consider all such objections including the objection about the competence of the Deputy Registrar, to pass the impugned order. The Deputy Registrar would decide the controversy within a period of one month from the date the certified copy of this order is produced before the Deputy Registrar by the petitioner. The parties agree to appear before the Deputy Registrar on 25.09.1991. It is expected that the Deputy Registrar would decide the controversy by 25.10.1991. Till then, the position as it is existing today shall be maintained. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs." The aforesaid order was passed in the presence of Shri R.C. Gaur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.C. Sharma, the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri B.N. Calla, the learned counsel appearing for respondent's No. 4 to 8. However, it is alleged that the petitioner did not appear before the learned Deputy Registrar on 25.9.1991 as per the directions of the learned single Judge in his order dated 4.9.1991 because he did not receive the certified copy of the order passed by this Court. According to the petitioner, the certified copy of the order dated 4.9.1991 passed by the learned single Judge was made available to him on 28.11.1991. He has submitted that he sent an application to the Deputy Registrar that he is ill and therefore, he is unable to present himself before him. However, the Deputy Registrar has decided the matter vide his order dated 22.1.1992 and cancelled the resolution passed by the General Body of the Society in its meeting held on 23.2.1991. Against that order dated 22.1.1992 of the learned Deputy Registrar, an appeal was filed before the Additional Registrar and that too came to be rejected vide his order Ex. 2 dated 12.3.1992. It may be stated here that the petitioner has only been supplied with a copy of the operative portion of the order dated 12.3.1992 passed by the Additional Registrar. It is alleged that after the rejection of the appeal by the learned Additional Registrar, the Deputy Registrar vide his order Ex.4 dated 26.3. 1992 directed the Election Officer to hold the elections of the Office Bearers of the Panchu Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti and accordingly, the Election Officer vide his order dated 28.2.1992 has issued the election programme. The petitioner has challenged the order Ex. 4 dated 26.3.1992 and Ex. 5 dated 28.3.1992.
(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that respondents No. 4 to 9 have been expelled from the membership of the Society by its General Body and that resolution of the General Body of the Society expelling the respondents No. 4 to 9 from the membership of the Society has been cancelled by the learned Deputy Registrar vide his order dated 22.1.1992 in exercise of his powers under s. 32 (1) of the Act, which has been confirmed by the learned Additional Registrar vide his order Ex. 2 dated 12.3.1992 and thereafter, in pursuance of the directions given by the learned Deputy Registrar vide his order Ex. 4 dated 26.3.1992 to hold the elections of the Office bearers of the Society, the Election Officer has issued the election programme to be held on 7.4.1992 vide his order Ex. 5 dated 28.3.1992. He has further contended that the learned single Judge of this Court vide his order Ex. 1 dated 4.9.1991 has ordered to maintain the existing position but that order has also not been complied with and the petitioner is being deprived of his rights by persons who sought back-door entry in violation of s. 33 of the Act and have got themselves elected to the Managing Committee of Society with the help of the learned Deputy Registrar and the Additional Registrar. His contention is that such elections should only be held after such controversy regarding membership of persons is resolved by the Court and therefore, the order Ex.4 dated 26.3.1992 and Ex. 5 dated 28.3.1992 be quashed. A return has been filed on behalf of respondent No.7, in which it has been contended that elections of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Panchu were held on 16.1.1992 and in those elections, seven members were elected and therefore, once the elections have taken place on 16.1.1992, the petitioner does not remain as Chairman of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Panchu and he had no right to hold any meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society on 7.2.1991 to convene a meeting of the General Body of the Society on 23.2:1991 and, therefore, the entire proceedings taken by the petitioner are illegal because he was no more Chairman of the Society. According to respondent No.7, the respondents No. 4 to 9 who were expelled vide resolution dated 23.2.1991 were duly elected members of the Managing Committee and the petitioner has no authority to expel them and even to call the meeting of the General Body of the Society and to pass such a resolution. According to him, the entire proceedings are ab initio void and it was because of this that the learned Deputy Registrar has served a notice to the petitioner for cancellation of the resolution under s. 32 (1) of the Act. It was further submitted that in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2612 of 1991, the learned single Judge has directed that the parties should appear before the Deputy Registrar on 25.9.1991 and a time limit has been given to decide the matter within one month. This order was passed in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondents No.l to 3 and respondents No.4 to 9 and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to present himself, before the learned Deputy Registrar on 25.9.1991 to file his objections including the objection about the competence of the Deputy Registrar to pass the impugned order under s. 32 (1) of the Act but still, he failed to do so. His presence and filing of objections were not dependent to the filing of the copy of the order passed by the learned single Judge because the parties agreed to appear before the learned Deputy Registrar on 25.9.1991 and, therefore, that could not have been avoided. However, the learned Deputy Registrar gave a number of opportunities to the petitioner for raising objections but he failed to do so and therefore, he has decided the matter exparte against him on 22.1.1992. Against that order, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Registrar was also rejected vide order Ex. 2 dated 12.3.1992. The stay order of the Court to maintain status quo was to operate only till the matter was decided by the learned Deputy Registrar and thereafter, no stay operated thereafter. Thus, the entire proceedings are absolutely valid. ;