SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N. Balaji
Vs
Virendra Singh
Appeal (Civil) 6522 of 2004, (Arising Out of Slp) No. 8717 of 2004)
(R. C. Lahoti (CJI) and P. K. Balasubramanyan and P.P.Naolekar)
05/10/2004
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
Co-operative Society Act 1984 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Old Act') and
the rules framed there under. 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 de-listing 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 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 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, 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 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).......
(b).......
(c)........
(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 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 5
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 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.