Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbinder Singh Sidhu vs The State Of Punjab And Ors on 2 July, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081678
CWP-16568-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
109 CWP-16568-2022
Date of decision:02.07.2024
GURBINDER SINGH SIDHU ...PETITIONER
VS.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Amrita Garg, AAG, Punjab,
for respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate
for respondents No.5 & 6 through video conferencing.
Mr. Manbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.7.
None for respondents No.8 and 9, despite service.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL J.
1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing list of elected candidates dated 20.06.2022, Annexure
P-13, qua respondent No.7, who has been elected unopposed as Director
of the Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (for short "the Bank").
Another prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the official respondents to consider the petitioner as
eligible for election to the Board of Directors of the Bank.
2. Petitioner claims to be the President of Sidhwan Bet
Multipurpose Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited (for
short "Sidhwan Society"). A programme, Annexure P-1, has been issued
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081678
for election to the Board of Directors of the Bank and a list of zones has
been prepared. Sidhwan Society falls in Zone-I and it circulated an
agenda dated 30.05.2022, Annexure P-2, and by resolution dated
15.06.2022, Annexure P-3, it authorized the petitioner to participate and
contest the election as a candidate. Certificates, Annexures P-4 and P-5,
were issued by the Punjab State Cooperative Development Federation
Limited and The Ludhiana District Cooperative Union Limited,
respectively, stating that nothing is due from Sidhwan Society on
account of annual contribution for the year ending on 31.03.2022.
Petitioner submitted his nomination form, Annexure P-6, as a candidate
from Zone-I annexing the no dues certificates. On an objection raised,
petitioner clarified that a wrong date has been mentioned on the
certificate, Annexure P-4. A clarification was also sought from the
Ludhiana District Cooperative Union Society, who issued a clarification
on 20.06.2022, Annexure P-11, acknowledging that a mistake had been
committed. Despite clarification, petitioner's name did not figure in the
list of eligible voters and respondent No.7 was declared elected
unopposed vide Annexure P-13, which has been impugned in the present
writ petition.
3. A short reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4,
which is taken on record. Upon notice, writ petition has been contested
by some of the respondents by filing separate replies primarily objecting
to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the
petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an election petition.
4. By placing reliance upon the judgments of this Court in
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081678
Nachhattar Singh Versus State of Punjab 1993 (2) R.R.R. 693 and
Sher Chand Versus Deputy Registrar Co-op. Societies, Ferozepur 1995
(1) R.R.R. 577, counsel for the petitioner has contended that availability
of an alternate remedy is not the solitary test and the High Court has
ample power under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere where
nomination papers have been illegally rejected.
5. Countering the submission of the petitioner, Mr. Ashwani
Prashar, counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 has placed reliance upon the
judgments in Umesh Shivappa Ambi and others Versus Angadi
Shekara Basappa and others 1998 (4) SCC 529 and Indu Lata
Aggarwal and another Versus Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies,
Patiala Division, Patiala and others 2011 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 564.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
7. In Umesh Shivappa Ambi's case (supra), Supreme Court has
held that once an election is over, the aggrieved candidate will have to
pursue his remedy in accordance with the provisions of law and the
Court will not ordinarily interfere with the elections under Article 226 of
the Constitution particularly when an equally efficacious remedy is
available under the statue in relation to election disputes.
8. In Indu Lata Aggarwal's case (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court dealing with the judgment in Sher Chand's case (supra)
relied upon by the petitioner, observed as under:-
"9. An identical question came to be
decided by a Division Bench of this Court, vide
judgment dated 9.3.2004 rendered in Civil Writ
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081678
Petition No.17761 of 2003 titled as "Pritam Singh v.
State of Punjab and others". Having interpreted the
relevant provisions, it was ruled as under:-
"We have heard learned counsel
representing the parties and examined the records of
the case. Mr. I.S. Saggu, learned counsel for the
petitioner, in his endeavour to show that the writ,
despite availability of remedy of election petition,
shall be competent, relies upon a judgment of Single
Bench of this court in Sher Chand and others v.
Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ferozepur
and others, 1995(1) RRR 577: 1995(1) PLR 260.
Mr.Sharma, on the other hand, relies upon the
judgment in Umesh Shivappa Ambi and others v.
Angadi Shekara Basappa and others, AIR 1999
Supreme Court 1566, to contend to the contrary.
Having heard learned counsel and
examining the record of the case, we are of the
opinion that an alternative remedy by way of
election petition is, indeed, available to the
petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of this
case, he has to be relegated to his alternative
statutory remedy. The judgment of this Court in Sher
Chand's case (supra) clearly mentions that the writ
petition would be competent at the stage when the
petitioner might have approached the Court before
the election result was declared. It is the positive
case of the respondents in the present case that
result of the election was declared on 5.11.2003. In
the facts and circumstances of this case, the
judgment of the Supreme Court will apply. The
petitioner, in view of statutory alternative remedy
available to him, is relegated to his ordinary
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081678
remedy. In the facts and circumstances of this case,
thus, judgment of this court in Sher Chand's case
(supra) would not be applicable. It is the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as relied by learned
counsel representing the respondents, that would
apply to the facts of the present case. The petitioner,
in view of the statutory alternative remedy, is
relegated to the said remedy."
9. Coming to the facts of the present case, it cannot be disputed
that the election to the Board of Directors of the Bank were held on
22.06.2022 and the result was declared on the same day vide Annexure
P-13. Instant writ petition has been filed on 22.07.2022, more than one
month after the declaration of the result. Petitioner has an alternate
remedy of filing an election petition under Rule 12 (2) of Appendix 'C' of
the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963. He has not given any
reason as to why he has not availed this remedy. There is nothing to
show that the alternate remedy is not adequate or efficacious. This Court
is of the view that the judgment reproduced above is applicable and the
writ petition is not maintainable.
10. Consequently, petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
However, petitioner is granted liberty to take recourse, if so advised, to
the alternate remedy of filing an election petition in accordance with law.
02.07.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
