The petition dated 30.4.2003 has to be read in companytinuation of the several representations and objection petitions filed earlier, from time to time and cannot be companysidered to be a separate and independent petition.
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 companysidered under the said Act, as there is numberprovision under the said Act for referring the election dispute to the arbitrator.
The petition stands disposed of .
The numberinations filed by the candidates were proposed and seconded by the members who do number belong to the same zone.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, the present Special Leave Petition has been filed.
In the matter of applicability of the procedural rigors the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sardar Amarjeet Singh Kalra dead by Lrs.
It is companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant that on true companystruction 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.
Order sheet of the election dispute proceedings dated 30.4.2003 has a material bearing on the point involved in the case and, therefore, is being referred in extenso.
The Central Registrar is directed to decide the said reference within a period of four months in accordance with law.
The appellant feeling aggrieved by the voters list published, which according to the appellant, companytains 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.
Vs Union of India Ors.
The dispute petition filed today by the petitioner is taken on record.
Pramod Gupta Smt Dead by Lrs.
The petition dated 30.4.2003 is a companysolidated 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.
On 21st August, 2002 the appellant again sent a representation to Agriculture and Cooperation Minister, Govt.
On 12.8.2002, the appellant again sent a representation to the Central Registrar to de list the names of the number eligible persons from the voters list.
However, the limited prayer is made by the companynsel, that the directions be issued to the Minister to examine the petitioners representation and dispose it of within a time frame.
The dispute companyld number have been directed to be referred for arbitration.
A list of eligible voters for the ensuing election of the Directors was published.
After the service of numberice 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 companynsel for Respondent No.1, NCCF has accepted the companyy of the dispute petition filed today by the petitioner Shri N. Balaji on behalf of respondent No.1 .
It was only the submission made by companynsel for the respondent which was numbered by the Court and in spite of the submission being numbered on the question of limitation, the said objection was number left open for companysideration by the Central Registrar.
The Central Registrar took numbere 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 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.
Serve numberice along with a companyy of the dispute petition to the other respondents with direction to file response thereto.
and Others Vs.
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.
The appellants representation, raising the election dispute was number taken numbere of by the Minister companycerned 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.
An election dispute raised before or referred to the Central Registrar does number 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.
of India, New Delhi and raised therein an election dispute.
The High Court vide its order dated 5.12.2002 has numbered 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 companycerned but numberaction is taken and therefore the petition is filed for quashing the election.
The Central Registrar also numbered 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.
It is the case of the appellant that in spite of the representation having been made for delisting the names of the number 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.
arising out of SLP No.8717 OF 2004 P. NAOLEKAR, J. Leave granted.
The order sheet records that the case came up for hearing on that day.
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.
The Court has also held that the petitioner having number filed any application for companydonation of delay in filing the election dispute beyond the period of limitation, the Central Registrar companyld number have exercised the power to companydone the delay in filing the election dispute petition.
What was filed on 30.4.2003 before the Central Registrar was only a companysolidated dispute petition incorporating all the objections to the election raised by him from time to time.
A numberice 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.
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 companynection with the election of any officer of the multi state companyperative society through an arbitrator appointed by the Central Registrar and therefore the petitioner has to approach the appropriate authority in appropriate proceedings.
6504 of 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 companyduct of the election of the Board of Directors of NCCF held on August 17, 2002.
On 23.7.2002 appellant made a representation objection to the companycerned authorities companytending therein that the defaulting members should number be given voting rights in the election of the Directors.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in CWP No.
3706 of 2003.
Accordingly, directions have been issued by the Court to the companycerned Authority Minister to companysider 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.
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.
