05 October 2004
Supreme Court
Download

N. BALAJI Vs VIRENDRA SINGH .

Bench: CJI,P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN,P.P. NAOLEKAR
Case number: C.A. No.-006522-006522 / 2004
Diary number: 6016 / 2004


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6522 of 2004

PETITIONER: N. Balaji

RESPONDENT: Virendra Singh & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/10/2004

BENCH: CJI, P.K. Balasubramanyan & P.P. Naolekar

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(arising out of SLP ) No.8717 OF 2004)

P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.                 Leave granted.         This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High  Court of Delhi in CWP No. 3706 of 2003.  National  Cooperative Consumers Federation of India Ltd.(NCCF for  short)  is a duly registered Society under the provisions of   Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be  referred to as the ‘Act’) and before the Act came into force by  the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984.   A notice for the election of the Directors of respondents Society  was published on 12.6.2002 under the  provisions of Multi State  Cooperative Society Act 1984  (hereinafter to be called as the  ‘Old Act’) and the rules framed thereunder.  On 23.7.2002   appellant made a representation/objection  to the concerned  authorities contending therein  that the defaulting members  should not be given voting rights in the election of the  Directors.  A list of eligible voters for the ensuing election of  the Directors was published.  The appellant feeling  aggrieved   by the voters list published, which according to the appellant,   contains the names of the persons who were defaulters, sent a  representation  dated 7.8.2002 to the Minister requesting him to  de-list the names  of any ineligible voters from the voters list.   On 12.8.2002, the appellant again sent a representation to the  Central Registrar  to de-list the names  of the non-eligible  persons from the voters list.  It is the case of the appellant that  in spite of the representation having been made for delisting the  names of the non-eligible persons from the voters list, the  election was held on the basis of the electoral roll published on  17.8.2002 and respondents 1, 2 and 3 were declared elected as    Directors of the Society.   On 21st August, 2002 the appellant  again sent a representation  to Agriculture and Cooperation  Minister, Govt. of India, New Delhi and raised therein an  election dispute.  The representation inter alia stated  that the  voters list has been irregularly prepared; non-eligible members  have been included in the voters list.  The nominations filed by  the candidates were proposed and seconded  by the members  who do not belong to the same zone.  The proposers and  seconders are not the valid voters as they have not paid the  minimum share capital before 15.7.2002 to NCCF.  The  delegate having a valid vote, has only one  vote  in the same  zone and not in the other zone, according to Section 22 of Multi  State Cooperative Societies Act 1984  and Bye Law 19 ) of  NCCF Act.  Instead of one vote, according to the Bye Laws,   each delegate has cast five votes which is illegal and untenable

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

and therefore directions would be necessary for each delegate to  cast only one vote, according to the Bye Laws etc.         The appellant’s representation, raising the election  dispute  was not taken note of by the Minister concerned or any  of the officer of the Society and therefore the appellant  approached the High Court of Delhi by filing a Writ Petition  which was registered as C.W.P. No. 6504 of 2002.         The High Court vide its order dated 5.12.2002 has noted  that the petitioner has challenged the election  to the Board of  Directors on 17th of August 2002 for which he claims to have  made a representation under Section 92 of the relevant Act to  the Minister concerned but no action is taken and therefore  the  petition is filed for quashing the election. However,  the limited  prayer is made by the counsel, that the directions be issued to  the Minister to examine the petitioner’s representation and  dispose it of within a time frame.  Accordingly, directions have  been issued by the Court to the concerned Authority/Minister to  consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21st of  August 2002 and pass appropriate order within one month from  the date of the receipt of the order of the Court.         When the matter went back to the Minister, Ministry of  Agriculture has taken the stand that Section 84 of the Multi  State Cooperative Societies Act 2002 provides for settlement of  disputes including a dispute arising in connection with the  election of any officer of the multi-state cooperative society  through an arbitrator appointed by the Central Registrar and  therefore the petitioner has to approach the appropriate  authority in appropriate proceedings.  The appellant, aggrieved  by the said order, has again approached the Delhi High Court   and filed a writ petition which is C.W. 1583 and CMs  Nos.2598-2600 of 2003 alleging therein that the elections were  held under the Act of 1984; objections were filed under the said  Act and therefore representation ought to have been considered  under the said Act,  as there is no provision under the said Act  for referring the election dispute to the arbitrator. The dispute  could not have been directed to be referred for arbitration.  The  Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, took note of the  submission of the appellant’s counsel, has also recorded the  submission made by Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the  respondents that the respondents have no objection if the matter  is referred to the Central Registrar under the  Act of 1984 for  deciding the disputes in terms of Sections 74(2)) and  74(3) of  Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984.  The order further  records  that Mr. V.P. Singh says that if the dispute is barred by  limitation, it will be open for the respondents to raise the said  objection.  The question of limitation will be decided by the  Central Registrar.  On these submissions the Court has issued  the following directions: "The representation of the petitioners  raising disputes or any other petition  containing the disputes regarding setting  aside of the election of the Board of  Directors held on 7th August 2002 be  referred to the Central Registrar for  adjudication under the Act of 1984.  The  Central Registrar is directed to decide the  said reference within a period of four  months in accordance with law.  The  petition stands disposed of ".

As per the direction of the Delhi High Court by its order dated  28.2.2003, the election dispute for the election dated 17.8.2002   was taken up by the Central Registrar, Department of  Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture.  Order-sheet of the  election dispute proceedings dated 30.4.2003 has a material

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

bearing on the point involved in the case and, therefore, is being  referred in extenso.   The order sheet records that the case came  up for hearing on that day.  The petitioner filed a proper dispute  petition for deciding the dispute relating to election of the  Board of Directors of NCCF held on 17th of August 2002.  The  petitioner says that he has filed a last and final dispute today  which should only be taken into account for deciding the  dispute raised by him in this petition relating to conduct of the  election of the Board of Directors of NCCF held on August 17,  2002.  The dispute petition filed today by the petitioner is taken  on record.  The counsel for Respondent No.1, NCCF has  accepted the copy of the dispute petition filed today by the  petitioner Shri  N. Balaji on behalf of respondent No.1 .  Serve  notice along with a copy of the dispute petition to the other  respondents with direction to file response thereto.           After the service of notice  on  respondents, an objection  has been raised to the maintainability of election dispute by  NCCF on the ground that limitation for raising the election  dispute to the election of the Director of a Multi State  Cooperative Society  is within one month from the date of   declaration of the election and thus the dispute raised on 30th  April 2003 is apparently barred by limitation.  The Central  Registrar took note of the fact that the dispute to the election  has been raised on 2nd August, 12th August, 16th August 2002  and by the petition dated 21st of August 2002. The Central  Registrar also noted the  fact that  different proceedings were  taken up  by the petitioner before the High Court of Delhi and  the directions  were issued by the Delhi High Court by its order  dated 28.2.2002.  The Central Registrar concluded  that in view  of all the facts and correct understanding of the order of Delhi  High Court the objection raised by the NCCF is rejected and the  petition is admitted..         Feeling aggrieved by the decision rendered by the  Central Registrar, respondents herein filed a writ petition in the  High Court of Delhi which was registered as C.W. 3706 of  2003 \026 Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.  The  Division Bench by its order dated 19.12.2003 has set aside the  order of the Central Registrar  holding that the election dispute  raised by the petitioner  was clearly barred by limitation..  The  Division Bench is of the view that the election dispute having  been raised by the  petition dated 30.4.2003  is apparently  barred by limitation as having been  filed beyond one month of  the election dated 17.8.2002 as per Section 75 (1)(d) of the Act  of 1984.  The Court has also held that the petitioner having not  filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the  election dispute beyond the period of limitation, the Central  Registrar  could not have exercised the power to condone the   delay in filing the election dispute petition.  Aggrieved by the  said order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, the  present Special Leave Petition has been filed.         It is contended by the learned  counsel for the appellant  that on true construction of the order passed by the High Court  dated 28.2.2003 and the order-sheet recorded  by the Central  Registrar dated 30th April 2003, it cannot be said that the  dispute was raised  beyond the period of limitation.  On the  contrary, the  learned counsel for the respondents supporting  the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court,  has urged that the dispute having been raised  on 30th of April  2003, it was clearly barred by limitation.           Before we consider the respective submissions so made   it would be appropriate to re-produce the relevant portion of  Section 75(d) and sub-s.(3) of Sec.75 of the Act, which reads as  under :- Section 75: Limitation  (1)     Notwithstanding anything contained in the

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), but  subject to the specific provisions made in  this Act; the period of limitation in the  case of a dispute referred to the Central  Registrar shall,---

       (a)\005\005\005\005\005..

       (b)\005\005\005\005\005..

       )\005\005\005\005........ (d)     when the dispute is in respect of an  election of an officer of a multi- State co-operative society, be one  month from the date of the  declaration of the result of the  election.

Section 75 (3)         Notwithstanding anything contained in  sub-sections (1) and (2), the Central Registrar  may admit a dispute after the expiry of the period  of limitation , if the applicant satisfies the Central  Registrar that he had sufficient cause for not  referring the dispute within such period.

Relevant  provision  of  Section  74(1) read  with Section 74(1)  (C ) of the Act of 1984 provides that notwithstanding anything  contained in any  other law for the time being in force, if any  dispute arises amongst the  members in connection with the  election of any officer of the multi-State cooperative society  (officer, includes the member of the Board by virtue of  definition of Officer in Sec.3 (o) of the old Act), it shall be  referred to the Central Registrar for decision and no Court has  jurisdiction to entertain any such or other proceedings in respect  of such dispute.  Thus whenever there is a dispute among the   members in connection with the election of a member of the  Board, it shall be referred to Central Registrar for decision.   Clause (d) of Section 75 postulates that the election dispute of  the member of the Board of a multi-State Cooperative Society  is to be raised within one month from the date of  declaration of  the result of the election.  Sub-s.(3) of Sec.75 authorizes the  Central Registrar  for the sufficient cause  to admit a dispute  after the expiry of the period of limitation if the Central  Registrar is satisfied  of  the sufficiency of the cause of raising  the dispute beyond the period of limitation.  In the present case   it is apparent  that the dispute has been raised prior to conduct  and declaration of the result of election by the appellant by  making representation on 23.7.2002 and 7.8.2002 and on other  dates  regarding  validity of the electoral roll for the conduct of  the election and on 21.8.2002 after the election has been held.   The appellant  approached the Delhi High Court by way of  writ  petition also.  A direction was issued by the Delhi High Court  by its order dated 28.2.2003 in specific terms that the  representation of the petitioner raising dispute or any other  petition  containing the dispute regarding setting aside election  of the Board of Directors held on 17th August  2002 be referred  to the Central Registrar  for adjudication under the Act of 1984.   The direction  in unequivocal terms directs consideration of all  the representations or any other petition containing the dispute   regarding the election to be referred to the Central Registrar for  adjudication.  The dispute or the representation made by the  appellant regarding the electoral roll would also be a dispute

5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

regarding  the election held on 17th of August 2002    apart from  the dispute to the election raised by the petitioner after the  election by his representation dated 21.8.2002 sent to the  Minister concerned.  The High Court of Delhi directed the  Central Registrar  to decide the said dispute within a period of  four months.  Direction of the High Court clearly contemplates  decision on all the petitions raising disputes to the election held  on 17th August 2002 within a period of four months.  The Court  has not left open  the    question  of    limitation  to be  considered while giving directions to decide the dispute within  four months.  Directions     issued by the Court    do not in any  way specify that the question of limitation will be decided by  the Central Registrar. It was only the submission made by  counsel for the respondent which was noted by the Court and   in spite of the submission being noted on the question of  limitation, the said objection was not left open for consideration  by the Central Registrar.  What was filed on 30.4.2003 before  the Central Registrar was only a consolidated   dispute petition  incorporating all the objections  to the election raised by him  from time to time. The petition dated 30.4.2003 has to be read  in continuation of the several representations and objection  petitions filed earlier, from time to time and cannot be  considered to be a separate and independent petition. The  petition dated 30.4.2003 is a consolidated version of various  grounds raising dispute to election in required format so as to  facilitate the tribunal to adjudicate and decide all the questions  raised after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all  parties. An election dispute raised before or referred to the   Central Registrar does not attract application of any rigorous  rules of  pleadings in a  the civil  suit under the Civil Procedure  Code or the election petition filed under the provisions of  Representation of People Act 1951.         In the matter of applicability of the procedural rigors the  Constitution Bench of this Court in Sardar Amarjeet Singh  Kalra (dead) by Lrs. and Others     Vs.   Pramod Gupta  (Smt)(Dead) by Lrs. and Others  (2003) 3 SCC 272  has  observed  that laws of procedure are meant to regulate  effectively, assist and aid the object of substantial and real  justice and not to foreclose even an  adjudication on the merits  of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and  other laws. With the march and progress of law, the new  horizons explored and modalities discerned and the fact that the  procedural laws must be liberally construed to really serve as  handmaid, make it workable and advance the ends of justice,  technical objections which tend to be stumbling blocks to defeat  and deny substantial and effective justice should be strictly  viewed for being discouraged, except where the mandate of law  inevitably necessitates it.  It follows from the decision by the  Constitution Bench that the procedure would not be used to  discourage the substantial and effective justice but would be so  construed as to advance the cause of justice.  The consolidated  petition filed on 30th April, 2003 filed by the petitioner would  not be taken to be a new petition presented before the Central  Registrar to declare it to be barred by limitation on the basis of  its date of presentation; it shall have to be read in continuation  of the earlier representation which were referred to the Central  Registrar for adjudication under the orders of the Delhi High  Court..         The matter can be looked from the other angle as well.   Sub-s.(3)  of Sec.75  of the 1984 Act authorizes the Central  Registrar to condone the delay in referring the dispute if the  Central Registrar is satisfied  that there was a sufficient cause  for not referring the dispute within the period of limitation.  The  requirement of sub-s.(3) is the satisfaction of the Central  Registrar for the sufficient cause, and is not dependent on  

6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

moving of an application for condonation of delay by the  petitioner. Even without there being any application for  condonation of delay, if  the facts which emerge  in the case are  sufficient to satisfy the Central Registrar  of the reasonable  cause for not referring the dispute within the period of  limitation, the  Central Registrar  can condone the delay in  exercise  of the powers conferred on him  under sub-s.(3) of  Sec.75 of the Act.           On the facts emerging  in the case, we find that the  discretion which  has been exercised in the facts and  circumstances of the case in condoning the delay  by the  Central Registrar is in accordance with the established  principles  of law and justice and it was not a fanciful or  arbitrary exercise of discretion.  The exercise of the  discretionary power can be interfered by the High Court only if  the order passed is violative of some  fundamental or  basic  principle of justice and fair play or suffers from any patent or  flagrant  error.  We do not find any such element  present  vitiating the exercise of power vesting in the Central Registrar  to condone the delay and entertain an election dispute.         For the  aforesaid reasons  the decision of the Division  Bench of the High Court of  Delhi is  set aside.  The Central  Registrar shall now proceed with the hearing of the petition of  the appellant and expeditiously determine the same on merits.   The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances of the case there  shall be no order as to costs.