2004 (10) TMI 633 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the voters list and inclusion of allegedly ineligible voters.
2. Proper procedure for raising election disputes under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and 2002.
3. Limitation period for filing election disputes.
4. Authority of the Central Registrar to condone delay in filing disputes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the voters list and inclusion of allegedly ineligible voters:
The appellant contended that the voters list for the election of the Directors included names of defaulting members who should not have been given voting rights. The appellant made several representations to the authorities, including the Minister and the Central Registrar, to de-list the names of ineligible voters. Despite these representations, the election proceeded, and respondents were declared elected as Directors. The appellant raised an election dispute, claiming irregularities in the preparation of the voters list and the inclusion of non-eligible members.

2. Proper procedure for raising election disputes under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and 2002:
The appellant approached the High Court of Delhi, which directed the Minister to consider the appellant's representation. The Ministry of Agriculture later stated that under Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, election disputes should be settled through arbitration by the Central Registrar. The appellant argued that since the election was held under the Act of 1984, the dispute should be considered under the same Act, which does not provide for arbitration. The High Court then directed the Central Registrar to adjudicate the dispute under the Act of 1984.

3. Limitation period for filing election disputes:
The Central Registrar, upon receiving the dispute, noted that the appellant had raised objections before and after the election, and the High Court had directed the representation to be considered. However, respondents argued that the dispute raised on 30th April 2003 was barred by limitation, as it was filed beyond one month from the election date (17th August 2002). The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court agreed, stating that the dispute was filed beyond the limitation period specified in Section 75(1)(d) of the Act of 1984, and no application for condonation of delay was filed.

4. Authority of the Central Registrar to condone delay in filing disputes:
The Supreme Court analyzed Section 75(3) of the Act, which allows the Central Registrar to admit a dispute after the limitation period if sufficient cause is shown. The Court noted that the appellant had raised the dispute through multiple representations and that the consolidated petition filed on 30th April 2003 was a continuation of these earlier representations. The Court emphasized that procedural laws should be liberally construed to advance justice, not to create technical barriers. It held that the Central Registrar's discretion to condone the delay was exercised appropriately and was not arbitrary.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which had declared the election dispute barred by limitation. The Court directed the Central Registrar to proceed with the hearing of the appellant's petition and determine it on merits. The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.