Waikhom Jiten Singh vs Th. Sabanam Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 37 Mani

KABORA Digitally signed                                                              Items 1-3
        by
MBAM KABORAMBAM                                                   (Through video-conferencing)

SANDEEP SANDEEP   SINGH
        Date: 2022.02.07
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
SINGH 17:12:09 +05'30'                   AT IMPHAL
                                       WA No. 38 of 2021
                                              and
                                     WP (C) No. 18 of 2022
                                             with
                                    MC [WP(C)] No. 10 of 2022
                                               ***

WA No. 38 of 2021

Waikhom Jiten Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o (L) W. Chaoba Singh of Heingang Mayai Leikai, P.O. - Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, District - Imphal East, Manipur, 795002.

...Appellant Vs.

1. Th. Sabanam Devi, aged about 42 years, D/o Th. Surangajit Singh of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West-District, Manipur - 795001;

...Principal Respondent

2. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary (Co-operation), Govt. of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West-District, Manipur, Pin - 795001;

3. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, Office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S.-Lamphel, District-Imphal West, Manipur, Pin - 795004;

4. The Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-opertative Bank Ltd., MG Avenue, Imphal, Manipur, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Head Office), MG Avenue, P.O. - Imphal & P.S.-City P.S., Imphal West-District, Manipur, 795001 and

5. The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Director/General Manager, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., office at MG Avenue, P.O.-Imphal & P.S.-City P.S., District- Imphal West, Manipur, Pin - 795001.

...Official Respondents

6. Shri. Huidrom Kesho Singh, aged about 66 years, of Singjamei Kakwa Huidrom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West- District, Manipur, Pin-795003;

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 1

7. Shri Th. Debeshwari Devi, aged about 46 years of Singjamei Makha Waikhom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, District - Imphal West, Manipur, 795001;

8. Shri Khomdram Brajakumar Singh, aged about 58 years, of Uripok Sorbon Thingel, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West-District, Manipur, 795001;

9. Shri Moirangthem Shyam Singh, aged about 61 years of Heirangoithong, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, District-Imphal West, Manipur, 795001 and

10. Shri Leimapokpam Chaoba Singh aged about 76 years of Singjamei Chirom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, District- Imphal West, Manipur, 795001.

...Respondents

W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022

Waikhom Jiten Singh, aged about 51 years, S/o (L) W. Chaoba Singh, resident of Heingang Mayai Leikai, P.O. Mantripukhri, & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur., 795002 ...Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Manipur represented by the Addl. Chief Secretary (Co-op) Government of Manipur, at Old Secretariat Building, Babupara, Imphal West, Manipur. Pin - 795001.

2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Manipur, having its office at Lamphel, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur - 795004.

3. The Returning Officer, Election to Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. at M.G. Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City, District Imphal West, Manipur - 795001 ...Respondents with MC [W.P. (C)] No. 10 of 2022 [Ref: W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022]

1. Shri Maibam Sunil Kumar Singh, aged about 53 years old, S/o. Maibam Shantikumar Singh, Laipham Khunou Mayai Leikai, Laipham Siphai, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795002.

2. Shri Khumukcham Lebanon Singh, aged about 46 years old, S/o Kh. Ingocha Singh, a resident of Thangmeiband, Khoyathong Polem Leikai, Lamphelpat Sub-Division, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur -

      795001
                                                            ...Applicants

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors.                                          Page 2
                                    Vs.

1. Waikhom Jiten Singh, aged about 51 years, S/o. (L) W. Chaoba Singh, a resident of Heingang mayai Leikai, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795002.

                                                                   ...Respondent
      2. The    State     of    Manipur    represented   by    the

Commissioner/Secretary (Co-op), Government of Manipur at Old Secretariat Building, Babupara, Imphal West, Manipur, Pin-795001.

3. The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Govt. of Manipur, having its office at Lamphel, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur - 795004.

4. The Returning Officer, Election to Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. at M.G. Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.

...Proforma Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

For the appellant/writ petitioner : Mr. M. Devananda, Advocate For the respondents and the : Mr. Lenin Hijam, Additional A.G. applicants in MC [WP (C)] No. 10 of Mr. M. Hemchandra, Sr. Advocate.

       2022                                    Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Advocate.
                                               Mr. Julius Riamei, Advocate
       Date of hearing and reserving of :      24.01.2022
       Judgment
       Date of Judgment & Order :              07.02.2022




                        JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Sanjay Kumar (C.J.):

[1]             The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited is a co-operative

society registered under the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976, (for

brevity, 'the Act of 1976'). As per its Bye-law No. 32, the management of the

affairs of the Bank is to vest in a Board of Directors which would have a term of

5 years. The Bye-law provides that one month before the expiry of the term of

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 3 the outgoing Board, the Bank must call for a Representative General Meeting

to elect new members and such election is to be conducted by an independent

body/authority constituted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur

(in short, 'the Registrar'), in accordance with the Election Rules of the Bank.

[2] However, it appears that there was no election to the Board of

Directors of the Bank for a long time which led to the filing of writ petitions, viz.,

W.P. (C) Nos. 536 and 549 of 2017, before this Court. These writ petitions

were allowed by common order dated 06.09.2017, whereby the Registrar was

directed to ensure that election to the Board of Directors of the Bank was held

within a time frame. Institution of Contempt Case (C) No. 205 of 2017, alleging

disobedience to the order dated 06.09.2017, finally resulted in positive action.

The Returning Officer, appointed by the Registrar, finalized the list of voters

and election of Delegates from different Groups of shareholders/ members was

held on 29.04.2018. Thereafter, Notice dated 03.11.2018 was issued by the

Bank notifying the elected Delegates that election to the Board of Directors for

the term 2017-18 to 2021-22 would be held on 02.12.2018. Protracted litigation

relating to the proposed election resulted in the process hanging fire till date.

[3] Historic narrative being rather long and tortuous, it would be

apposite to recount only facts pertinent to the present adjudication: By Notice

dated 12.11.2018, the Returning Officer informed candidates for election to the

Board of Directors that at the time of scrutiny of their nomination papers, they

should be personally present along with the Proposer and Seconder. The

scrutiny was to be taken up on 17.11.2018 for Groups A to F and on

19.11.2018 for Groups G to L. Upon completion of such scrutiny, the Returning

Officer issued Notice dated 20.11.2018 recording that the documents

submitted by fifteen candidates were in order but five of them were ineligible to

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 4 contest the election for violation of Bye-law No. 33 of the Bank's Bye-laws. The

names of the five ineligible candidates and of the ten eligible candidates were

detailed in the Notice dated 20.11.2018.

[4] Aggrieved by the rejection of their candidature, the five Delegates

who were found ineligible, filed Co-operative Revision No. 3 of 2018 before the

Manipur State Co-operative Tribunal at Lamphelpat. The Tribunal disposed of

the revision, vide order dated 18.03.2019, quashing/setting aside the Notice

dated 20.11.2018 on the ground that it was not sustainable and recording that

the parties to the revision had agreed to continue the election from the stage of

scrutiny of the nomination papers. Notably, the ten eligible candidates named

in the Notice dated 20.11.2018 were not made parties to this revision.

[5] Challenging the aforestated order dated 18.03.2019, two

amongst the ten eligible candidates named in the Notice dated 20.11.2018,

viz., Yumnam Kumar Singh and Th. Sabanam Devi, filed CRP (CRP. Art. 227)

No. 17 of 2019 before this Court. This revision was disposed of by order dated

18.12.2019. Therein, this Court observed that the Notice dated 20.11.2018

was found to be unsustainable only in so far as the five ineligible candidates

were concerned and that the apprehension of the petitioners, two out of the ten

eligible candidates, was misplaced and misconceived as they were found to be

qualified. This Court held that there was no manner of indictment in so far as

the ten eligible candidates were concerned and that the Tribunal's order could

not be made applicable to them. It was concluded that no order was required

to be passed at the behest of the petitioners who had no cause of action to file

the revision in view of the fact that no relief has been sought against them by

the five ineligible candidates.

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors.                                               Page 5
 [6]           Significantly, by letter dated 16.12.2019, the Registrar informed

that the five ineligible candidates named in the Notice dated 20.11.2018 were

also found qualified to contest the election to the Board of Directors. He further

stated that the ten eligible candidates, who were declared so in the Notice

dated 20.11.2018, would also be allowed to contest the election.

[7] At this stage, it may be noted that, apart from the fifteen

candidates named in the Notice dated 20.11.2018, six other Delegates were

also candidates for election to the Board of Directors. However, they were

excluded at the threshold by the Returning Officer as they had failed to present

themselves along with their Proposers/Seconders, in terms of the Notice dated

12.11.2018. One of these six candidates, viz., Waikhom Jiten Singh submitted

representation dated 27.03.2019 to the Registrar asserting that insistence on

the presence of Proposers/Seconders was contrary to Rule 26 of the Rules for

Election of Delegates and Directors of The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank

Limited (in short, 'the Rules') and requesting modification or cancellation of the

Notice dated 12.11.2018 issued by the Returning Officer. He requested that he

should be allowed to participate in the election to the Board of Directors of the

Bank by conducting a fresh scrutiny.

[8] Waikhom Jiten Singh then filed W.P. (C) No. 722 of 2019 before

this Court complaining of inaction on his representation and praying for a

direction that he may be allowed to participate in the election of Directors of the

Bank by conducting fresh scrutiny. This writ petition was disposed of by one of

us, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Lanusungkum Jamir, on 10.09.2019, taking note of the

submission made on behalf of Waikhom Jiten Singh that he would be satisfied

if the Registrar was directed to consider and dispose of his representation

dated 27.03.2019. The Registrar was accordingly directed to consider and

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 6 dispose of his representation dated 27.03.2019 in accordance with law within

one month.

[9] Consequent to this direction, the Registrar issued order dated

22.10.2019. Therein, he noted that Notice dated 12.11.2018 issued by the

Returning Officer required the personal presence of the candidate's Proposer

and Seconder but Rule 26 of the Rules did not mention anything about such

presence and directed the Returning Officer to reconsider the nomination

papers which were rejected due to non-appearance of the candidate's

Proposer/Seconder. Pursuant thereto, the Returning Officer issued Order

dated 26.11.2019 proposing to conduct re-scrutiny on 05.12.2019. By

Corrigendum dated 29.11.2019, the Returning Officer termed his earlier

communication dated 26.11.2019 as a 'Notice' instead of an 'Order'. Having

undertaken the re-scrutiny, the Returning Officer issued Notice dated

05.12.2019. Therein, he observed that nomination papers of the six

candidates, including Waikhom Jiten Singh, had been found to be in order but

one amongst them, viz., Huidrom Kesho Singh, was not eligible to contest the

election for violation of Bye-law No. 33 of the Bank's Bye-laws.

[10] W.P. (C) No. 1009 of 2019 was filed by Th. Sabanam Devi, an

eligible candidate named in the Notice dated 20.11.2018, assailing the order

dated 22.10.2019 issued by the Registrar and the consequential Order,

Corrigendum and Notice dated 26.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019

respectively issued by the Returning Officer.

Independently, two other Delegates of the Bank filed W.P. (C)

No. 1059 of 2019 before this Court, assailing the letter dated 16.12.2019

addressed by the Registrar, informing that the five ineligible candidates,

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 7 named in the Notice 20.11.2018, along with the ten named eligible candidates,

were qualified to contest in the election.

Prior to these two cases, W.P. (C) No. 207 of 2019 was filed by

Th. Sabanam Devi and 2 others seeking expeditious conduct of the election.

[11] These three writ petitions, along with the miscellaneous cases

filed therein, were disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court, vide common

judgment and order dated 21.06.2021. The learned Judge allowed W.P. (C)

No. 1009 of 2019 and quashed/set aside the order dated 22.10.2019 of the

Registrar and the consequential proceedings of the Returning Officer. W.P. (C)

No. 1059 of 2019 was disposed of taking note of the fact that CRP (CRP. Art.

227) No. 17 of 2019 had already been disposed of on 18.12.2019 and holding

that no grounds were made out to invalidate the letter dated 16.12.2019 of the

Registrar. W.P. (C) No. 207 of 2019 was allowed and the authorities were

directed to expedite the process of election to the Board of Directors of the

Bank in view of the Notice dated 20.11.2018 issued by the Returning Officer.

The authorities were directed to hold the election to the Board of Directors from

amongst the eligible candidates, strictly as per the Bye-laws of the Bank and

as per the applicable law, as expeditiously as possible. The miscellaneous

cases were all dismissed.

[12] At that stage, WA No. 36 of 2021 was filed by third parties to

W.P. (C) No. 207 of 2019 aggrieved by the direction of the learned Judge that

the process of election should go on as per the Notice dated 20.11.2018 of the

Returning Officer. When this appeal came up for hearing before this Bench on

16.08.2021, it was noted that the Notice dated 20.11.2018, as it originally

stood, could no longer be acted upon in the light of intervening circumstances

and the orders passed by the Tribunal and this Court in relation thereto. The

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 8 Bench noted that all the fifteen candidates named in the Notice dated

20.11.2018 would be entitled to contest in the election and passed an interim

order permitting them to participate in the election which was scheduled to be

held on the next day, i.e., 17.08.2021. However, the result of the election was

directed not to be declared till the next date of hearing and it was observed that

holding of the election would be subject to further orders of this Court in that

appeal and other connected matters.

[13] Thereafter, when the said appeal was taken up on 26.10.2021,

this Bench was informed that the election had been held on 17.08.2021 as per

the interim order dated 16.08.2021 and, therefore, the direction of the learned

Judge to act upon the Notice dated 20.11.2018, as it originally stood, could no

longer be given effect to. As the limited grievance of the appellants in the said

appeal stood settled, the same was recorded and the writ appeal was disposed

of making the interim order dated 16.08.2021 absolute in so far as parties to

that appeal were concerned.

[14] The connected matter, W.A. No. 38 of 2021, was filed by

Waikhom Jiten Singh, who was arrayed as respondent No. 10 in W.P. (C) No.

1009 of 2019, assailing the common judgment and order dated 21.06.2021, in

so far as it pertained to the quashing of the order dated 22.10.2019 of the

Registrar and the consequential proceedings dated 26.11.2019, 29.11.2019

and 05.12.2019 of the Returning Officer.

No interim order was passed in this writ appeal.

[15] While so, as the election to the Board of Directors was held on

17.08.2021 and he was not permitted to participate therein, Waikhom Jiten

Singh filed W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022. Therein, he stated that he had submitted

an application on 29.12.2021 to the Registrar to initiate arbitration of disputes

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 9 in relation to the order dated 22.10.2019 of the Registrar and the consequential

proceedings of the Returning Officer. He further stated that letter dated

03.01.2022 has been addressed by the Under Secretary (Co-operation),

Government of Manipur, to the Registrar, asking him to declare the result of

the election held on 17.08.2021 and by letter dated 05.01.2022, the Registrar

requested the Returning Officer to proceed with the declaration of the election

result at the earliest. Pursuant thereto, the Returning Officer issued Notification

dated 06.01.2022 stating that the result of the election would be declared on

13.01.2022. Aggrieved thereby, Waikhom Jiten Singh sought quashing of the

letters dated 03.01.2022 and 05.01.2022 and the Notification dated

06.01.2022. He sought a further direction for reference of the disputes to

arbitration pursuant to his application dated 29.12.2021.

[16] This writ petition was listed before a learned Judge of this Court

on 10.01.2022 and the learned Judge expressed the view that it would be

appropriate to place the case before the concerned Division Bench to decide

whether the interim order dated 16.08.2021 in W.A. No. 36 of 2021 would still

subsist after passing of the final order dated 26.10.2021 therein. This

observation was made in the context of the argument advanced on behalf of

Waikhom Jiten Singh that the said interim order dated 16.08.2021 barred

declaration of the election result. The learned Judge deemed it appropriate to

stay the declaration of the result till the next date as the writ petition would

become infructuous otherwise.

[17] On 18.01.2022, MC [W.P. (C)] No. 10 of 2022 was filed in

W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022, by a Delegate and a Member of the Bank seeking to

be impleaded as respondents No. 4 & 5 in the writ petition. They sought such

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 10 impleadment to assist this Court in the context of the term of the newly elected

Board of Directors.

[18] The writ petition was listed on 19.01.2022 and this Bench opined

that it would be appropriate that the hearing of W.A. No. 38 of 2021 be

expedited as the writ petition hinged on the result thereof. The Registry was

accordingly directed to list the writ appeal and the writ petition on 24.01.2022.

The interim order granted in the writ petition was extended till then.

[19] On 24.01.2022, Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the

appellant/writ petitioner; Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Additional Advocate General,

Manipur, appearing for the State authorities; Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned

senior counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 in the writ appeal;

Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel, appearing for the applicants in MC

[WP(C)] No.10 of 2022; and Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for the Bank;

advanced final arguments and judgment was reserved. The interim order in the

writ petition was extended till pronouncement of the judgment.

[20] At the outset, it may be noted that the prayer of Waikhom Jiten

Singh in W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022 is utterly misconceived and bereft of merit.

The order dated 22.10.2019 of the Registrar and the consequential

proceedings dated 26.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019 of the Returning

Officer have already been quashed by a learned Judge of this Court, vide the

common judgment and order presently under appeal. Unless Waikhom Jiten

Singh succeeds in W.A. No. 38 of 2021 filed by him against the quashing of

the aforestated order and proceedings, the question of his seeking arbitration

in relation thereto does not arise. Further, as no interim order was granted in

W.A. No. 38 of 2021 interdicting the election or the declaration of the result

therein, his challenge to the letters dated 03.01.2022 and 05.01.2022 and the

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 11 Notification 06.01.2022 is also misconceived. Reliance placed by him upon the

interim order dated 16.08.2021 passed in W.A. No. 36 of 2021 and the final

order dated 26.10.2021 passed therein is equally misplaced. It may be noted

that the interim order dated 16.08.2021 made it abundantly clear that the

election was to be held on 17.08.2021, as scheduled, with the fifteen

candidates whose names found mention in the Notice dated 20.11.2018. As

the said writ appeal was pending, the result of the election was directed not to

be declared till the next date of hearing. This Bench also made it clear that the

holding of the election would be subject to further orders in that appeal and

other connected matters. Thereafter, when W.A. No. 36 of 2021 was taken up

on 26.10.2021, this Bench was informed that the election has been held on

17.08.2021 and that the appellants therein no longer had any issue. This

Bench accordingly noted that the limited grievance of the appellants stood

settled and disposed of the appeal making the interim order dated 16.08.2021

absolute in so far as the parties to that appeal were concerned. Be it noted that

Waikhom Jiten Singh was not a party to that appeal and he, therefore, cannot

seek to garner any benefit therefrom or under the final order. In any event, the

making of the interim order absolute was only for protecting the election which

had been conducted pursuant thereto and not to interdict declaration of the

election result for all times to come. The very holding of the election will be

rendered redundant by such an interpretation of the final order.

[21] In so far as the writ appeal is concerned, Mr. M. Devananda,

learned counsel, would contend that the order dated 22.10.2019 and the

consequential proceedings dated 26.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019 of

the Returning Officer were not liable to be set aside as the candidature of

Waikhom Jiten Singh had been rejected on wholly unsustainable grounds and

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 12 his prayer for fresh scrutiny of his nomination was not unjustified. Learned

counsel would point out that Rule 26 of the Rules deals with scrutiny of

nomination papers and reads to the effect that all nomination papers received

in time should be scrutinized by the Returning Officer and during the course of

scrutiny, the Returning Officer may demand reliable confidential reports from

the Bank regarding past relationship of the candidate with the Bank.

Nomination papers found invalid had to be rejected and reasons for rejection

were to be noted on such nomination papers. Learned counsel would point out

that there is no requirement in the Rule that the candidate's Proposer and

Seconder should be present in person on the date of scrutiny and, therefore,

the Notice dated 12.11.2018 issued by the Returning Officer, insisting on such

presence, was invalid. He would state that the representation dated

27.03.2019 made by Waikhom Jiten Singh, pointing out this aspect, was not

considered constraining him to approach this Court by way of W.P. (C) No. 722

of 2019 and, by the order dated 10.09.2019 passed therein, the said writ

petition was disposed of directing consideration and disposal of the

representation dated 27.03.2019 in accordance with law within a time frame.

Learned counsel would therefore contend that the Registrar was fully justified

in passing the order dated 22.10.2019. To demonstrate the Registrar's power

to do so, learned counsel placed reliance on Rule 44 of the Rules:

'Rule 44. Interpretation:

Should there be any doubt in the interpretation or meaning of any of these Rules, the decision of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Manipur, in this behalf, shall be final.'

Learned counsel would assert that the order dated 22.10.2019 was

passed by the Registrar in exercise of the power vested in him under the

above Rule and, in consequence, neither the said order nor the proceedings of

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 13 the Returning Officer were invalid in law. He would pray for setting aside the

judgment and order under appeal in so far as it quashed the aforestated order

and proceedings.

[22] Per contra, Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Additional Advocate

General, Manipur, would contend that the Registrar and the Returning Officer

both committed errors in relation to the election process. He would argue that

the Returning Officer was at fault in insisting upon the presence of the

candidate's Proposer and Seconder at the time of scrutiny of the nominations,

as such a prescription was not there in the Rules. However, incorrect rejection

of a nomination, per the learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur, would

not entail fresh scrutiny or re-scrutiny of the rejected nomination, as there is no

legal provision that enables the same. He would therefore assert that the

Registrar was equally in error in passing the order dated 22.10.2019 requiring

the Returning Officer to undertake re-scrutiny of the nominations of those who

were excluded due to absence of their Proposers/Seconders. He would

accordingly submit that the judgment and order under appeal, to the extent it

invalidated the Registrar's order dated 22.10.2019 and the consequential

proceedings, does not warrant interference in appeal.

Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel, appearing for the Bank,

adopted the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur.

[23] Supplementing those arguments, Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned

senior counsel, appearing for Th. Sabanam Devi, would state that Waikhom

Jiten Singh was well aware of the Notice dated 20.11.2018 issued by the

Returning Officer dealing with the candidature of only fifteen Delegates,

wherein he did not even find mention, and point out that he never chose to

challenge the same. Further, when he filed W.P. (C) No. 722 of 2019, he did

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 14 not even disclose that the said Notice had been issued by the Returning

Officer, whereby he stood completely excluded from consideration. That apart,

when he received the Notice dated 12.11.2018 of the Returning Officer,

requiring the presence of the Proposer and Seconder of the candidates,

Waikhom Jiten Singh kept quiet and did not choose to challenge the same. It

was only on 27.03.2019 that he chose to submit a representation that the said

Notice was invalid. Further, though W.P. (C) No. 722 of 2019 was filed long

after the issuance of the Notice dated 20.11.2018, he did not choose to

challenge the same therein and, on the contrary, went to the extent of

suppressing it altogether. Learned senior counsel would also argue that once

the nomination of a candidate stood rejected, it would be a ground for

challenge in an election petition and there is no procedure prescribed under

the Act or the Rules enabling re-scrutiny or fresh scrutiny of a rejected

nomination. He would, therefore, pray for confirmation of the judgment and

order dated 21.06.2021 in this regard.

[24] Having given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions of

all the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that no grounds are made out for

appellate interference. Waikhom Jiten Singh was clearly lacking in bonafides

when he approached this Court by way of W.P. (C) No. 722 of 2019. Therein,

he chose to suppress the fact that the Returning Officer had issued Notice

dated 20.11.2018, restricting consideration to the nominations of only fifteen

candidates. Further, he has no explanation to offer as to why he did not

choose to challenge the Notice dated 12.11.2018 of the Returning Officer in

time, though the dates of scrutiny fixed thereunder were 17.11.2018 and

19.11.2018. In any event, the order dated 10.09.2019 passed in the said writ

petition merely required the Registrar to dispose of his representation in

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 15 accordance with law. Therefore, there was no positive mandate and it was for

the Registrar to deal with the said representation as per the applicable law. In

this regard, it may be noted that there is no provision either in the Act of 1976

or the Rules framed thereunder or the Rules framed by the Bank which

enabled re-scrutiny or fresh scrutiny of nominations after they stood rejected.

Rule 44 of the Rules, upon which much stress has been laid by Mr. M.

Devananda, learned counsel, is wholly inapplicable as it deals with a situation

where there is any doubt about the interpretation or meaning of any of the

Rules and in such an event, the decision of the Registrar is given finality. In the

case on hand, the Returning Officer did not raise or entertain any doubt for

application of Rule 44. He scrutinized the nominations in the manner he

deemed fit and eschewed some nominations at the threshold. In effect, he

rejected those nominations. Be it noted that Rule 44 does not empower the

Registrar to exercise appellate or revisional power over such decisions of the

Returning Officer, even if they be erroneous. Therefore, once the Returning

Officer took a decision and rejected any nomination, the Registrar had no role

to play in relation thereto, whereby he could direct fresh scrutiny or re-scrutiny,

as was done by him under the order dated 22.10.2019.

[25] The only remedy available in the context of an invalid rejection of

a nomination is to take recourse to Section 91 of the Act of 1976. Section 91(1)

provides, inter alia, that any dispute touching the election of office bearers shall

be referred by any of the parties to the dispute to the Registrar. Section

92(1)(d) provides that when the dispute is in respect of an election of an office

bearer of the society, the limitation for referring the dispute to the Registrar

would be one month from the date of the declaration of the election result.

Section 93 empowers the Registrar, if he is satisfied that a matter referred to

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 16 him is a dispute within the meaning of Section 91, to decide the dispute himself

or refer it for disposal to a nominee or a Board of nominees appointed by him.

Section 96 states that the Registrar or his nominee or Board of nominees may,

after giving the parties to the dispute a reasonable opportunity of being heard,

make an award on the dispute. Such an award, subject to any appeal or review

or revision, is to be binding on the parties to the dispute. Section 97 provides

that an appeal would lie to the Tribunal against the decision of the Registrar or

his nominee or Board of nominees.

[26] In the light of the aforestated scheme, the Registrar had no

authority or power to direct fresh scrutiny or re-scrutiny of the nominations that

had already been rejected by the Returning Officer. Trite to state, interference

with an election process after its initiation would be permissible only on limited

grounds and invalid rejection of a nomination is not one such ground. The

order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Registrar and the consequential

proceedings dated 26.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019 of the Returning

Officer were thus wholly unsustainable in law. The judgment and order under

appeal, holding to that effect, therefore does not brook any interference.

[27] Further, as already noted supra, the prayers of Waikhom Jiten

Singh in W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022, presuming that he would be successful in

W.A. No. 38 of 2021, are liable to be rejected. That apart, he cannot seek to

draw any benefit from the orders passed in W.A. No. 36 of 2021 which were

limited to the parties thereto. In any event, a stray sentence from the order

passed therein cannot be twisted out of context, without reference to the import

of the full order, so as to claim that the result of the election held on

17.08.2021 is not to be declared for all times to come. In the light of the

W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 17 disposal of W.A. No. 36 of 2021, there is no impediment whatsoever to the

declaration of the result of the election held on 17.08.2021.

MC [W.P. (C)] No. 10 of 2022 filed in W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022 is

also liable to be rejected. The applicants therein seek to raise the issue of the

term of the Board of Directors now elected. However, this aspect does not

arise for consideration either in the writ appeal or in the writ petition and it is

not open to the applicants to seek to enlarge the scope of these cases by

introducing a new issue that may constitute a separate cause of action.

[28] The writ appeal and the writ petition are devoid of merit and are

accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed in W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022 is

vacated. MC [W.P. (C)] No. 10 of 2022 filed in W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022 is also

dismissed. The result of the election held on 17.08.2021 shall be declared in

accordance with due procedure.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

                              JUDGE                      CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sandeep




W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors.                                                Page 18