Satnam Singh and Chaman Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Alok Singh, J.—Petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 23.8.2007, 31.10.2008 and 9.3.2009 passed by the Joint Registrar - respondent No. 3, Additional Registrar - respondent No. 2 and the Financial Commissioner (Cooperation), Government of Punjab - respondent No. 1, respectively.

Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner and respondent No. 4 are individual shareholder members of the Nawanshahar Cooperative Sugar Mill Ltd., Nawanshahar, which is registered under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Election programme of the Board of Directors of the Mill for 2006 was published and as per the election programme, nomination papers were to be filed before the Returning Officer on 20.2.2006, objections were to be filed on 21.2.2006 and scrutiny of the papers was to be made on 22.2.2006. Petitioners as well as respondent No. 4 filed their nomination papers. Nomination papers of respondent No. 4 were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the proposer had not supplied 85% of bonded sugar cane and the proposer of respondent No. 4 was a disqualified person. Petitioners were declared successful in the elections as unopposed.

Feeling aggrieved from the rejection of the nomination papers and by declaring the petitioners as the winning candidates, respondent No. 4 made a reference of dispute u/s 55 of the Act read with Rule 51 and Rule 12(2) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Respondent No. 3 decided the reference vide order dated 23.8.2007, thereby accepting the reference made by respondent No. 4 herein. The Joint Registrar - respondent No. 3 herein has held that the alleged defaulters of byelaw 10(X) may be declared disqualified to contest the elections, however he cannot be said to be disqualified as the proposer of another candidate. The Joint Registrar also observed that there is no provision in the byelaws which mandates supply of 85% bonded sugar cane to the mill as a condition precedent to become a candidate.

Feeling aggrieved from the order passed by the Joint Registrar, statutory appeal u/s 68(2)(c) of the Act, was preferred which was decided vide Judgment dated 31.10.2008. Matter was further carried in the shape of revision before respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 also dismissed the revision vide order dated 9.3.2009.

Mr. Kang, learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that under the bylaws of the Sugar Mill, all the members of the Sugar Mills are duty-bound to supply 85% of the bonded sugar cane to sugar mill. He further argued that the defaulter, who had not supplied 85% of the bonded sugar cane to the sugar mill is disqualified to be elected as a member and is further disqualified to be a proposer in the elections. He further argued that time was granted by the Returning Officer to respondent No. 4 and his proposer to prove that he has supplied 85% of the bounded sugar cane to the sugar Mills, however, despite of time being granted, nothing was produced before the Returning Officer and hence, the Returning Officer was well within his jurisdiction to reject the nomination papers of respondent No. 4. He has also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Brij Mohan Vs. Sat Pal, . In contra, Mr. Vipul Dharmani, learned Counsel for the private respondent argued that there is no bylaws, which mandates to supply 85% of bonded sugar cane to the Sugar Mills and non-supply thereof can disqualify the member to contest elections or to become the proposer in the nomination papers of other candidate. He has placed reliance on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 PLJ 268. He has further placed reliance on the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Pala Singh v. State of Punjab 1976 PLJ 211.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is to find out as to whether there is any provision under the Act, Rules or bylaws made thereunder, prescribing qualifications of the proposer of a candidate. On being asked repeatedly, Mr. Kang was not able to produce any provision under the Act, Rules or bylaws prescribing the qualifications of the proposer of the candidate in the elections. He repeatedly argued that a person, who failed to supply 85% of the bonded sugar cane to the Sugar Mills, is disqualified to be nominated as a member, hence he is also disqualified to become a proposer of another candidate.

In the matter of Brij Mohan (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with the question under the Representation of the People Act. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of Brij Mohan''s case (supra), the Apex Court has held that the Returning Officer in the aforesaid case was justified in rejecting the nomination papers of the candidate on the ground that the candidate could not show the names of himself and the proposer in the electoral roll. The ratio of Brij Mohan''s case (supra) is not applicable to the present case.

This Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra) in paragraph 11 having discussed entire provision, as held that the disqualification of default has nothing to do with a person who proposes the name of another as a candidate.

In the case of Pala Singh (supra), the learned Single Judge has also held that disqualification or default has nothing to do with the person who proposes the name of any other candidates.

Having perused the record, I am of the view that in the absence of any provision under the Act, Rules or bylaws, declaring a person to be disqualified to become a proposer of another candidate, cannot said to be disqualified to become a proposer merely because he has failed to supply 85% of the bonded sugar cane to the Sugar Mills. Moreover, Mr. Kang could not place on record any bylaws of the Society mandating to supply 85% of the bonded sugar cane to Sugar Mills to acquire eligibility to contest the elections or to stand proposer of another candidate contesting the elections.

Petition is devoid of merit and hence is dismissed.

A photocopy of the order be placed on the file of connected case.