Ber Sarai Co-Operative Vegetable ... vs Lt. Governor, Delhi And Ors.
1997 Latest Caselaw 885 Del

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.

(1) Rule D.B. Liberty to parties to apply for early hearing after the pleadings are complete. C.M. 7368/97

(2) In the writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the vires of Rule 64 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules as notified vide Notification No. F66/ Polices/RCS/97-98/1851 dated 6th August, 1997. By the said notification Rule 64 stands amended. The question which has arisen for consideration is whether the election which was ordered to be held vide this Court's order dated 26th November, 1993 and for which Justice J.D. Jain had been appointed as the Election Officer, should be held as per the amended Rule 64. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner apart from challenging the vires of amended Rule 64 on various grounds, has submitted that in view of the fact that election process had already commenced, the election in the present case should in any case be held without giving effect to the amendment in Rule 64. We have heard the learned Counsel for parties on this aspect. In this behalf the order dated 13th August, 1997 passed by the Election Officer is significant. The said order takes note of the fact that the required amendment in the voters' list was being considered and carried out. It is clear from the said order that the election schedule had yet to be fixed. The concluding part of the order is relevant in this context. It records "Election schedule shall be prepared today at the meeting to be held in the office of the Dsc Bank Limited as already intimated to the Administrator. He may also inform the Registrar about the same". The learned Counsel appearing for the Administrator of the Bank in question has pointed out that no meeting in pursuance of this direction was held nor the election schedule was prepared on that date or subsequently. From the order of the Election Officer it is clear that the election schedule had neither been finally fixed by that date nor it had been notified. Certain letters issued in pursuance of the said order of the Election Officer have also been placed on record. One of them is a letter dated 12th August, 1997 in which the Election Officer has stated amongst other things that the election was proposed to be held on 30th September, 1997. In the other letter dated 2nd September, 1997 the date of election is not mentioned and the letter only calls upon the defaulting member to make up the pecuniary deficiency. It does mention the last date of filing of nominations, but no date of election finds mention.

(3) From these facts on record we are unable to say that the election process has begun. The election process has to begin as per Schedule Ii to Rule 58 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules. No steps in pursuance of the said Schedule have been taken so far. Election process would really commence with taking of steps as per Schedule II. The first step envisaged therein is to fix the date, time and place for convening a general body meeting for the conduct of election of the successor committee and intimating the same to the Registrar by registered post. Nothing of this kind has been done.

(4) The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner contended that the date of appointment of the Election Officer by this Court on 26tli November, 1993 should be taken as the date when the election process started and once the election process has started, the amendment of Rule 64 thereafter should have no relevance. For purposes of the election in this case, the amendment ought to be ignored. We are unable to accept this contention. As already observed the election in this case is governed by the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules Mere appointment of Election Officer cannot be said to be beginning of the election process. Nor finalisation of lists of voters can be said to be commencement of the election process. Finalisation of list of voters is at best a step in aid of the election process.

(5) So far as the challenge to the amended Rule 64 is concerned, the amendment has been carried out in pursuance of statutory powers and, therefore, the Rule has a statutory force and we are not inclined to slay its operation merely on the ground that it has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(6) Accordingly, we are unable to grant the prayer contained in this application. The application is dismissed. The Election Officer should proceed with holding the election as per Rule 64 as it stands today.