Omprakash Bairagi and Another vs Principal Secretary State of M.P. and Others

Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 13/3/13 in W.P. No. 5521/2012. The appellant had raised two issues before the Registrar. First relief claimed by the appellant was dependent on the second grievance regarding the continuation of 44 persons as members of the society though they were disqualified and ineligible and to permit them to participate in the election process. As regards the second grievance of the appellant, the same has been enquired into and it has been found by the Registrar that the 44 persons identified by the appellant amongst the 250 members of the society were disqualified and in any case could not have continued on the roll of members of the society. As a result, the Registrar has directed deletion of names of those 44 persons from the voters list. The Returning Officer has acted upon the said direction and deleted the names of the 44 persons before proceeding with the election process further.

On the first issue, however, the fact as to whether all the 44 persons were founder members of the society and at the time of formation of the society were disqualified no finding has been recorded by the Registrar nor the Registrar has finally dealt with the relief claimed by the appellant for dissolution of the society on that allegation.

With regard to the second relief claimed by the appellant, the learned Single Judge has opined that after deletion of 44 names from the voters list the election process ought to proceed further in accordance with law. The appellant is not satisfied with these observations. According to the appellant unless the decision is rendered on the first relief claimed by the appellant the holding of elections of the society which ought to be dissolved may not be appropriate. We are not impressed by this grievance of the appellant. According to us, the two remedies are independent and can be proceeded separately. As regards the second relief, that has already been answered and decided in favour of the appellant for which nothing more needs to be done in that behalf. As regards the first relief, the appellant will have to substantiate the fact that all the 44 members who have now been found to be disqualified were so disqualified even when the Society was formed and further that because of disqualification of such large number of members in law the order of registration of society is vitiated or becomes null and void. Those are matters which will have to be decided by the Registrar in the first place.

As aforesaid, that is an independent issue and for that the holding of elections of the society which were due long back cannot brook any further delay. The elections ought to be proceeded in accordance with law on the assumption that the society has been duly registered as the dispensation of administrator cannot be continued indefinitely and in any case after the statutory period is over. It is in the interest of the society and the eligible members of the society in particular to have early elections to constitute the elected Managing Committee. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interdict the election process which ought to continue in accordance with law.

As aforesaid, the Registrar will have to enquire into all aspects of the matter with regard to the first relief claimed by the appellant as to whether the decision/order of registration of society can be said to be nullity in the eyes of law or the defect if any noticed can be said to be severable and/or curable defect. In other words, whether the registration of society on the basis of application submitted by remaining eligible persons to be members of the proposed society were at any rate entitled to form a cooperative society and for which reason the registration of society cannot be said to be illegal much less nullity in the eyes of law. These are matters which will have to be examined by the Registrar on its own merits after giving opportunity to all concerned in accordance with law. That, however, should be done expeditiously preferably by the end of April, 2014.

In case the Authority finds that the registration of the society was nullity, needless to observe that consequential orders that may be necessary will have to be passed by the Registrar and including to declare that all actions taken by the said Society are non-est in the eyes of law. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.