9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the election process for the President and other Office-Bearers of the Society. 2. Authority of the General House to authorize the President to nominate other Office-Bearers. 3. Estoppel by acquiescence due to signing of election results. 4. Non-joinder of necessary parties in the writ petitions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Election Process: The core issue revolves around the validity of the election process held on 25-5-1998 for the President and other Office-Bearers of the Bilaspur Truck Operators Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. The Arbitrator set aside the election due to irregularities such as the use of a photocopied voter list containing names of defaulter and deceased members, and the absence of simultaneous elections for all posts. The Registrar, however, overturned this decision, stating that the objections were vague and lacked material particulars. The court, upon review, upheld the Registrar's findings, emphasizing that both contesting candidates had signed the election results, thereby certifying their satisfaction with the polling process. The court found no contemporaneous evidence of irregularities, deeming the objections as afterthoughts. 2. Authority of the General House: The Registrar's decision to validate the President's authority to nominate other Office-Bearers based on a resolution passed by the General House was challenged. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, and the Rules, concluding that the General Body's resolution was invalid. The Act and Rules mandate that the Managing Committee must be constituted by election, and the General Body cannot authorize the President to make nominations. The court emphasized that such an interpretation would violate the statutory provisions and the spirit of the cooperative movement. 3. Estoppel by Acquiescence: The court addressed the principle of estoppel by acquiescence, noting that petitioner Nand Parkash Vohra, having signed the election results, was estopped from challenging the election process. The court cited various precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh, which highlighted that without contemporaneous evidence of irregularities, a recount or challenge to the election process is unwarranted. The court found that Vohra's explanation for signing the election results was unconvincing and unsupported by any immediate objections or evidence. 4. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties: The respondents argued that the writ petitions were defective due to the non-joinder of other Office-Bearers and Members of the Managing Committee. The court, however, found substance in the petitioners' argument that since the grounds for challenging the election were the same for all Office-Bearers, the non-joinder was not consequential. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in B. Prabhakar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which supported the view that the writ petition could proceed without impleading all affected parties if the primary respondents were already represented. Conclusion: The court concluded that the election of the President and the subsequent nominations were illegal and non est. The impugned order of the Registrar was set aside, and the Registrar was directed to hold fresh elections in accordance with the law. The writ petitions were accepted, and the election process conducted on 25-5-1998 was nullified. No order as to costs was made.
|
