1. Rule 62 is Against Section 31 (1) of the Act
No. F 15/65-73/Coop. Dated: 17.11.1983
n exercise of the powers conferred by Section
97 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (Act No. 35 of 1972) the Lt.
Governor of the
Short Title & Commencement:
1. These Rules may be called the Delhi Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 1973.
2. They shall come into force at once. Amendment of Rule 62:
Amendment of Rule 62 :
For the existing Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 62 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, the following shall be substituted, namely :-
Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 31 and notwithstanding anything contained in the bye laws, certain proportion of members of its committee, not less than 1/3, shall retire in each year. The members of the committee due for retirement shall vacate their offices on the date specified in that year but will continue to hold office till their successors are elected.
Provided that the retirement of 1/3 members during the first two years would be by draw of lots by Managing Committee.
By Order and in the name of the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi.
Special Secretary (Corporation)
BE PUBLISHED IN PART IV OF
(EXTRAORDINARY) GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL
No. F. 1
(93)/AR(L)/RCS/Coop/1 40 Dated:
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of 97 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act 1972 (Act 35 of 1972), the Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, namely1. (1) These rules may be called the Delhi Cooperative Societies (Third Amendment) Rules, 1973.
(2) They shall come into force at once,
2. In the Delhi Cooperative Societies, Rules, 1973, in Chapter IV in rule 58, after sub-rule (5) the following shall be added :-
(5) In all Cooperative Societies, including the class of Cooperative Societies prescribed for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 31, one post shall be reserved for women in the Managing Committee.
By order and
in the name of the Lt. Governor of
Reservation for Women in Management has been increased from one seat to two seats vide Notification No. F.66IPolicyIRCS-1997-98/1861 dated 6.8.1997
Special Secretary (Corporation)
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR
Societies, Govt. NCT of
No. F. 15/93/ARL/RCS/401/50 Dated: 6.12.93
DIRECTIVE U/S 32 OF THE
In exercise of the powers conferred upon me under sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972,1, S.M.S. CHAUDHARY, Registrar, Coop. Societies do hereby direct that in such Cooperative Societies or Cooperative Banks where Managing Committee/Board of Directors have been removed and Administrator appointed in their place, the Administrator shall constitute a subcommittee to assist and advise him for taking decisions on important matters regarding the affairs of the Society/Bank.
The Sub-Committee shall consist of 3-4 members including the Administrator. Some Ex-Members of the Managing Committee or some prominent members of the society like lawyers, doctors, professors, engineers, civil officers, architects and other professionals having specialised knowledge in matters pertaining to the Society/Bank may be inducted into the Sub-Committee.
The formation of such Sub-Committee may be intimated to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies within 2 months from that date of this Directive.
Registrar, Coop. Societies
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVT. OF NCT OF
OLD COURT’S BUILDING,
Disqualification for Election under Sec 59(2) of Act
39/Policy/RCS/1 142 Dated:
DIRECTIVE UNDER RULE 77 OF THE
Subject: Dis-qualification of a member found guilty U/s (2) of DCS Act. 1972 for contesting the elections to the M.CIBOD of a cooperative society/bank.
A by Ex/present member of managing committee/ BOD of a cooperative society/Bank if found guilty u/s 59(2) of DCS Act. 1972 for mis-appropriation of funds of the society/Bank should not be eligible for contesting elections to the M.C./BOD of the said society/Bank as the offence committed by the said member involves dishonesty and moral turpitude and is covered under clause (D) of Rule 59 of DCS Rules, 1973.
Therefore, I, GITA SAGAR, Registrar, Cooperative Societies hereby direct that henceforth if any offence is committed by any member of Ex/Present M.C/Board of a cooperative society/Bank U/s 59(2) of DCS Act, 1972 and if the offenders is held guilty U/s 59(2) of the Act he shall be disqualified for contesting the elections to the M.C./BOD of a cooperative society/bank under clause (d)of Rule 59 of DCS Rules, 1973 This is for information of all the societies/banks registered under the DCS Act, 1972
REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
No.f.39/Policy/RCS/1 143-1160 Dated:
Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to:
1. All the Deputy Registrars.
2. All the Assistant Registrars.
3. The C.E.O.
4. P.A. to RCS/JRCS.
REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVT. OF
Holding of Election and Office at Site
52/PoIicy/RCS/1 182 Dated
All Cooperative G/H
Sub: Directive under Rule 77 of DCS Rules. 1973.
It has come to the notice of the Deptt. that in the cases of a number of Coop. G/H Societies, elections are not held in me premises of the Society even when the flats have been built and the members are staying there. On the other hand, elections are held at places far away from the premises of the society which causes unnecessary inconvenience to the members. Complaints in this regard have also been received by the Deptt. from time to time alleging that the elections are held by MC’s in power at places far away from the society premises with the malafide intention of discouraging the members from casting their votes. Quite a few of such complaints were found to be genuine on verification.
It has also been observed that several Coop, 0/H Societies have not shifted their Regd. offices in their premises even after competition of construction of the housing projects and even after allotment t of flats to the members. Keeping of the Regd. office away from the society premises cashes a lot of inconvenience and harassment to the members. In some extreme cases, the society has not made any provision for an office in the complex and in some cases, such office has been converted into a flat
Keeping in view the above stated facts and circumstances, I Geeta Sagar, Registrar. Cooperative Societies exercising the powers vested in me under Rule 77 of DCS Rules 1973, issue the following instructions to all the Coop. G/H Societies
1. Each and every society shall make provision for an office in G/H Complex at the planning stage itself and the space so earmarked shall not be converted for any other purpose. DDA shall be kept informed of the position.
2. Soon after the construction of the flats, the society will shift its Regd. office to the G/H complex where the flats have been built and send an intimation to the RCS office and the members about the shifting.
3. After the shifting, the election of the Coop. G/H Society shall be held in the premises of the society only. Even in the cases where the election is being conducted by this office, it will be conducted in the premises only.
REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
6. Amendment in Schedule II under Rule 58 for voter list 45 days before the election instead of 30 days
TO BE PUBLISHED IN PART IV OF
(EXTRAORDINARY) GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL
No. F.2/Legal/Coop./94/1 105-1109 Dated:
No.F.2/93/Coop/94 - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 97 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (Act 35 of f 1972). the Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973, namely:
Short title and commencement
1.(i) These rules may be called the Delhi Cooperative Societies (Second Amendment) Rule, 1994
(ii) They shall come into force at once.
Amendment 2. In the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 for the existing clause of Schedule (3)
II under of Schedule II under Rule 58(1), the following shall be substituted,
Rule 58 namely:
The Committee shall prepare a list of members as it stood on the date 45 days before the date fixed for the nomination and publish copies of the said list by affixing them upon the Notice Board at the Head Office of the Society and in its branches, if any not less than ten days prior to the date fixed for nomination. The list shall specify the admission number and name of the member, the name of the father or husband as the case may be, and the address of such member. A copy of the list shall be supplied by the Society to any member on payment of such fee as may be specified by the Committee. Where no fee has been specified, the Secretary or any other person authorised by the bye-laws, shall supply list on payment of an amount of Rupees five only:
Provided further that a list of the members, who are in default of payment to the society shall also be prepared 45 days before the date fixed for the poll and the amount of pecuniary default will be intimated to the members concerned by registered post at least 15 days before the date fixed for filing of the nomination and if the amount is cleared before the date of filing of nomination, the member shall not be deemed to be a defaulter.
3. In the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 the existing clause (a) and (f) of Rule 59 are substituted as below:
Substitution (a) he is in default to the society in respect of any sum due from him to of clause the society or
(a) and (f) owes the society an amount exceeding his maximum credit
of Rule 59. limit
Provided further that the onus to prove the default shall be on the society.
(f) he, during a period of 12 months preceding the date of filing of nomination papers, has been carrying on, through agencies other than the Co-operative Society of which he is a member, the same business as is being carried on by the Co-operative society.”
By order and in the name of
the Lt. Govemor of
SPECIAL SECRETARY (COOPERATION)
Election to be held as per Provision of Byelaws not Rule 62.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
Date of Decision 5th March. 1992.
Mr. A. Sundara Rajan
Mr. Rajiv Nayyar
The Registrar Coop. Societies and others.
Ms. Avnish Ahiawat
& Mr. RS.Tomar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P.WADHWA
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.L. Gupta
1. Whether Reporters of local papers maybe allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? yes
1. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment?
This writ petition has been filed against the respondents for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order of direction for restraining Audyogic Karamchari Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., respondent No. 2 (the Society in short) from holding and conducting elections on 20th October, 1991 on the basis of an undated notice. The notice required holding of election of only 1/3rd of the members of the Managing Committee ot tne Society.
The allegation are that the petitioner is a legal and bonafide member of the Society which was registered in 1970 under the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act 1972 (Act for short) Section 29 of the Act says that every Co-operative Society shall within a period of six months, after updating its account for the year &rnder rules for the time being in force, call a general meeting of its members for approval of its activities, election of the members of the committee other than nominated members consideration of annual audit report, etc. According to section 31 of the Act, which provides procedure for holding election and nomination of members of the Committee, superintendence, direction and control of preparation of electoral rolls shall be vested with such retuming officer not below the rank of a gazetted officer as may be appointed by the Lt. Governor in this behalf. The term of the office of the elected members shall be such, not exceeding three co-operative years, including co-operative year of their election, as may be specified in the bye-laws of the Society.
The main grievance of the Petitioner is that in terms of Section 31 of the Act all the members of the Managing Committee could hold office for a term which is consonance with the bye laws of the Cooperative Society. Since the election sought to be held in respect of 1/3rd members only, was contrary to the provisions of the Act and the bye laws, it was necessary to issue an appropriate writ.
By an interim order on
In the counter affidavit of the Society, it is stated that under Section 60(2)(c) of the Act, any dispute arising in connection with the election of an officer of a Society was liable to be referred to the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, i.e. the first respondents. So an efficacious remedy being available, the petition was not maintainable. The other ground taken up is that the election process had already been completed, counting had taken place and result declared and hence the writ petition has become infructuous. It is also stated that according to Rule 62 of the Co-operative Societies Rules 1973 (Rules for short), one-third members of the Committee retire in each year, and therefore, elections were liable to be held only against vacancies of retiring members. Therefore, there was no illegality in holding the election against the vacancies of one-third retiring members only.
The plea in the Counter affidavit of the first respondent is that after election 1/ 3rd members of the Society under Rule 62, a new Committee comes into existence and, therefore, there was no illegality in the procedure of holding elections for 1/3rd members only.
We have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
On behalf of the first respondent, it is argued that dispute regarding holding of the election of 1/3rd members of the committee of the Society was square covered under Section 60(2)(c) of the Act, and, therefore, the proper remedy for the petitioner was to approach the fist respondent instead of rushing to this court. On behalf of the petitioner, it is argued that the dispute referred in the present petition is not covered by the aforesaid provision, because the challenge in this petition is not to the election of an individual member or members, but whether the respondent Society is justified in holding elections of 1/3rd members in the light of Section 31 of Act, Rule 62 and Bye-law 23(5) of the Society. We are of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has merit. It is the interpretation of the aforesaid section, rule and by-law which calls for decision regarding holding of elections of 1/3rd members. No dispute of any individual member is involved and, therefore, there is no bar to the maintainability of the petition.
Now the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that according to the bye laws of the Society, the period during which any member of the Managing Committee of the Society could hold office was limited to only one Co-operative Year. For this purpose, our attention has been drawn to bye law No.23 and specially to Sub-clause (5). Sub-clause (5) says that “the Committee members shall be elected and hold office for one year and shall be eligible for re-election provided that if for any unavoidable reason, a general meeting could not be held at a suitable time within the year, the existing committee shall continue to hold office till the election of the new committee, but such election shall be held within a period of 18 months from the previous election unless the Registrar extends the period of holding the general meeting and the election by a general or special order with regard to a Society or class of Societies.”
There is no dispute that the Society in the present case is not excluded from consideration by the inclusion of the words “such Co-operative Societies or class Co-operative Societies” as used in Section 31 of the Act. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, when the elected members of the Society could hold office only for one Co-operative year, the Society cannot have recourse to Rule 62 of the Rules for holding elections of 1/3rd members only because Rule 62 is in clear violation Section 31 of the Act. Section 31, the argument further goes, cannot be read so as to permit the continuation of 2/3rd elected members of the Society for three continuous Co-operative years specially when it says that the term of the office of the elected members of the Committee shall be such as may be specified in the bye laws of the Society. Since bye law 23(5) of the Society permits the Committee members to be elected and hold office for one year only. It was incumbent upon the respondent to hold elections of the entire Managing Committee of the Society every year, of course within the limitations contained in the aforesaid bye law. To rebut this argument, Our attention has been drawn to Rule 62 of the Rules. Upon the basis of the Rules, it is argued that this Rule mandates that 1/3rd members of the Committee shall retire each year and in that situation, the Society was competent to hold elections in respect of only the vacancies caused by the retiring members. So far as the perusal of the Rule goes, there is no doubt that its intention is the same. The aforesaid Sub-section clearly mandates that the term of the office of the elected members shall not exceed three Co-operative years, but at the same time this term cannot be more than that specified in the bye laws of the Society permit the elected members of a part of them to continue to hold office for three Co-operative years, it is not possible to hold that such a power can be conferred by simply enacting a Rule. The Rules derive their force from the power conferred in the main body of this Act. If the bye laws of the Society had permitted the continuation of the term of office of the elected members for three Co-operative years Rule 62 of the Rules could be validly invoked by the respondents. Since, in the present case, bye law 23(5) of the Society permits the elected members to hold office only for a period of one year, we think that Rule 62 cannot be invoked by the respondent to validate the election of only, 1/3rd members of the Society in a particular Co-operative year. As the bye laws of the Society, in the present case, do not allow the elected members to hold office for more than one co-operative year, it must be held that the elections of the Society will have to be held every year, of course, within the limitation prescribed by the bye laws. Bye law 23(5) permits the Committee to continue to hold office till the election of the new Committee for a period of holding the General Body Meeting and the election by a general or special order.
Therefore, we are of the view that the action of the respondent-society in holding elections of 1/3rd members only does not conform to section 31 of the Act read with bye law 23(5) of the Society.
In the present case, the election of 1/3rd
members of the Managing Committee were allowed to be conducted and results
declared in terms of the interim order dated
Two terms Interpretation
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
Civil Writ No. 2010/91
Suresh Chand Jain & others through Mr. R.P.Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Poddar & Mr. R.S.T. Advocates
Lt. Governor of
Mr. C.J.Gupta for respondent 4 & 5
Mr. Ramesh Chandra with
Mr. Mahipal for respondent No. 6
Mr. Mukul Rohtgi for the applicant, in C.M.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain
Interpretation of Two Terms Bar on office Bearers under Sec. 31(5) a
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed seeking writ of mandamus directing the second respondent, Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Returning Officer to conduct election of the Board of Directors of Jai Lakshrni Cooperative Bank ltd. as per law and a further direction to him to accept of the nomination papers of petitions 1 and 2 for the posts of Chairman and Director of the Bank. Yet another direction sought is that nomination papers filed by respondents 3 to 5 for the posts of Directors be rejected.
The tank is a Society registered under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act 1972 (for brevity the Act) and for the purpose of election and nomination of its board of Directors is governed by the provisions of Section 31 of the Act. This Board of the bank is Committee as defined in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act. The Committee has been defined in clause (b) of section 2 of the Act meaning the governing body of a cooperative society, by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the society is entrusted. The Board of Directors comprises of 11 members. If reference is made to Bye-law 22 of the Bye-laws of the Society, all the Directors shall be elected in the general meeting. Out of these 11 Directors, one is to be elected as Chairman, the other Vice-Chairman, the third Secretary and the fourth as Treasurer. There is some controversy if the Secretary and Treasurer are to be elected by the general Body or if they are to be elected by the Board itself.
are three petitioner and six respondents Petitioner No. 1 field his nomination
paper for the post of Chairman and petitioner No. 2 for the post of Director.
The third petitioner is a member of the Society. He, however, did not file his
nomination for any post. The first respondent is Lt. Governor of
Returning Officer, respondent No.2 issued programme of election to the Board of
Directors of the Society. This is Annexure ‘P.1’ to the writ petition. After
the list of valid nominations was displayed, petitioner 1 and 2 did not find
their names. They made inquired and were told that the first petitioner was
ineligible on account of Rule 59(b) read with Rule 61(b) of the Rules framed
under the Act. Thereafter it appears that only respondent No. 6 was left in the
field for the post of Chairman. This led to the filing of the present writ
petition. After notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued was
given, the respondents field their respective answers to show cause notice.
Byorderdated28-6-91 Rule D.B. was issued. The election which was scheduled to
be held for
Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit has submitted that his interpretation of Section 31(5) is correct and that petitioner No. 1 was ineligible to contest for the post of Chairman. As regards petitioner No. 2 it is not disputed that he is a party to a contract of lease of the property where the bank if situated being one of the lessort thereof. Respondent No. 2 has further state that when he came to know that respondents 3, 4 & 5 were also ineligible to stand for election under rule 59(k) of the Rules, he has since delete their names from the valid list of nominations.
Relevant provisions referred to are as under:
Section 31(5) :
“Notwithstanding anything contained in Act, a person shall be disqualified for election as, for being, the president, vice-president. Chairman, vice-chairman, managing director, secretary, join secretary or treasurer of a committee -
(a) if he has held any such office on that committee during two consecutive terms, whether full or part:
(b) if he holds any such office on a committee of another co-operative society of the same type;
(c) if he holds any such office on the committee of three or more cc-operative societies of a different type or different types;
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall be deemed to disqualify any such person for election as or for being, a delegate of a society or a member of another committee.
Explanation 1, Where any person holding any person holding any office as aforesaid at the commencement, shall for the purpose of this subsection be deemed to have held that office for one term before such election.
Explanation 2, A person who has ceased to hold any such office as aforesaid continuously for the one full term shall again be qualified for election to any of those offices.”
It is any admitted case that the first petitioner was earlier holding the post of Secretary and then as Vice-Chairman for two consecutive years and for a short period as Chairman. The Chairman had since resigned. The dispute revolves on the interpretation of the word “any such office” appearing in clause (a) of sub-section (5) of Section 31. The respondents contend that this will apply to whatever post a member held consecutively for two terms, for example, whether as chairman for both the terms or as Chairman once and any other post for the other term. The petitioners say that this interpretation is not correct and that this provision would not debar the first petitioner for being nominated for the post of Chairman. He say bar will as noted above the interpretation given by the second respondent, who is the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, is in agreement with what has been put by the other respondent. We, however, find ourselves, In agreement with the interpretation so put by the petitioner. In our view If the interpretation as suggested by the respondent Is correct, then Instead of the words “any such office” the words should have been “any of such offices”. In normal circumstances every member has a light to contest any post for any number of terms. This sub-section puts a bar on that right. We do not think we should blockade that right to such a limit as to debar the member from contesting the post which he did not hold consecutively for two terms. A bare reading of whole of sub-section (5) of section 31, as noted above, leads us to this very conclusion. A person to be disqualified for election to a post must have held that very post consecutively for two terms, whether full or part. An argument was also raised that this sub-section will apply only to those posts for which the election was also raised that this sub-section will apply only to those post for which election is held by the general body. It was contended that the Secretary and Treasurer were elected by the Board of Directors of the bank and not by the general body. This lead us to see the various bye-laws of the Society. Under Bye-law 19 the duties of general body are also to elect, Suspend or remove Directors including a Chairman and Vice-Chairman, It was therefore, submitted by the respondent that it would show that only Chairman and vice-chairman and other Directors were to be elected and not that Secretary and treasurer was also be elected. Bye-1aw22 is however, quite specified which says that all the Directors shall be elected in the General Body Meeting and Four of them will be designated as Director-Chairman, Director-Vice Chairman, Director-Secretary and Director Treasurer. Option was however, given to these office bearers not to use the word “Director’ along with their names of office. Under Bye-law 24 of the Board of Director exercise all powers of the bank except those reserved for general body. Reference was then made by the respondent to clause 24 and 25 of this bye-law where the Board of Directors has been given the power to appoint Treasure and Secretary and one or more Joint Secretaries used in these clause would refers to Director Secretary and Director-Treasurers mentioned in bye-law 22 of the Bye-laws. We, therefore, again do not find ourselves In agreement with the interpretation sought to be put by the respondents. In our view, therefore, the nomination papers of the first petitioner were wrongly rejected and he has been deprived of his right to stand election for the post of Chairman.
As regards the second petitioner we do not think much can be said by the petitioners as Rule 59(b) read with Rule 61(b) is quite specific which debars a person for being eligible for election as a member of the Committee if he has directly or indirectly any interest In any contract to which the co-operative society is a party and the terms “contract” also includes granting of lease of the property of the society. Relevant portion of Rule 59(b) and 61(b) are as under:
“No Person shall be eligible for election as a member of the Committee if
He has, directly or indirect any interest in any contract to which the cooperative is a party except in transaction made with the co-operative society as a member in accordance with the objects of the as stated in the bye-laws.”
“Without prejudice to the provisions of the bye-lays, no officer of a cooperative society shall have an interest directly or indirectly, otherwise than as such officer:
In any property sold for purchased or leased by or the society.”
We, therefore, find that the nomination paper of the second petition was rightly rejected.
In the counter affidavit the second respondent has said that after he come to know that respondents 3,4 & 5 could not stand for election he has since deleted their names from the list of valid nominations. This is because of Rule 59(k) which is as under.
“He has not completed minimum period of six months from the date of acquiring membership of the society in case of an urban cooperative bank.”
On the account the petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to have any grievance. However, this was subject matter of comments by Mr. Gupta learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 5. He said once names of respondents 3 to 5 were shown in the list of valid nominations, their names could not have been deleted and this has let to an error setting the whole process of election at naught Mr. Gupta, however, could not dispute that respondents 3 to 5 could not stand for election as per Rule 59(k) of the Rules. If Mr. Gupta has nay grievance he can have a separate remedy in law but his cannot be made subject matter of present controversies between the parties.
Two preliminary objections was also raised by Mr. Rarnesh Chandra learned counsel for respondent No. 6. These were that the present petition was premature in as much as the election process was not yet over and further that alternative remedy under sub-section (7) of Section 31 of the Act was available to the petitioners. He referred to a few judgments of the courts to support his view. Under sub-section (7) of Section 31 any dispute relating of election of members of any committee of a co-operative society mentioned ;n sub-section (1) shall be referred to the Lieutenant Governor whose decision thereon shall be final. Reference is also made to bye-law 55 of the Bye-laws which mentions that in case of any dispute about the meaning or interpretation of any provision of Co-operative Societies Act, Rules, and these bye-laws, the decision of the Registrar shall be final. Mr. Chandra, therefore, contends that the subject mater of the controversy in the present writ petition should have been referred to the Lt. Governor and Registrar Cooperative societies for their decisions. We have given our careful consideration to these submissions. In normal circumstances we would have certainly agreed with these, but in the facts in this case, that stage to our mind, is over after Rule D.B. was issued and the matter having been heard at length by us. It is not the submission of anyone that this Court lacks jurisdiction in the matter. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the submission at the stage, though we are quite adverse to our interference in the matters.
We allow the writ petition and quash the order holding the nomination of the first petitioner to be invalid. With the result the whole process of election as set in motion by Annexure P-i has to be set aside.
That, however, does not conclude the matter. We feel, in circumstances of the case, we have to give further directions, particularly, in view of an application made by the bank for various of our earlier orders whereby we in effect put restraint on the bank of disbursing any loan etc. to the members. The contention of Mr. Ramesh Chandra is that if the restraint orders are removed, it is possible that loans might be disbursed to those members to whom the present management is quite close, thus effecting the free and proper conduct of the elections.
Considering all the points submitted before us we issue the following directions:
1. The election process in accordance with terms stated above shall be completed with six week from today.
2. The election shall be held in terms of Bye-law 22 of the Bye-law are because of the view which we have taken aforementioned the election shall be of the 7 Directors and that of Director-Chairman. Director Vice-Chairman. Director-Secretary and Director Treasurer.
The list of valid members entitled to vote and file nominations shall be same
as that existed on
4. Board of Directors, we are told, constitutions a loan
committee for disbursement of loan to the members. Aggarwal, Director and
shall be chaired by Mr. O.P. Gupta (Tel7-40785) a former Official Liquidator
attached to this Court, who has since retired as Director Company Law and
Affairs. Govt. of
The writ petition is allowed in these terms. Interim orders made earlier shall stand vacated. The rule is made absolute. There will, however, be not order as to costs.
Copy of this order be given to Mr. Kirti Uppal counsel for respondents 1 & 2 as well as to Ms. Amrita Sanghi, council for the bank and also to Mr. O.P. Gupta.
Note: Two term bar applies on the same office. Rotation of offices are permissible
9. Election to be held as per R.C.S. order for venue
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR COOP. SOCIETIES,
GOVT. OF NCT OF
No. 52IPolicyRCS/1 512-1562 Dated
All Cooperative G/H Societies of
Reference is invited to the directive issued vide No. 52/Policy/RC511182 dated 30.01.96 whereby certain instructions were issued to all housing societies regarding provision of office in the housing complex, shifting to the said office arid venue for holding elections.
It has been observed that in certain societies where there is intense infighting amongst members or where elections are not being held, this office has to intervene and appoint an Election officer for conduct of elections. In such cases it is not always possible to hold elections at the complex of the housing society and an alternative suitable venue for elections becomes necessary.
In view of above para 3 of the aforementioned directive is amended to read as follows:
“After shifting, the election of the cooperative group housing society shall be held in the premises of the society only. However where Election officer for conduct of elections is appointed by the Registrar or in any case where the Registrar so directs, elections shall be held at the venue decide by the Election Officer or as directed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies.
The above direction will come into force immediately.
REGISTRAR COOP. SOCIETIES
The CEO Delhi
State Coop. Union, 31 F, Darya Ganj,
Asstt. Registrar (Policy)
10. Election Fee to be charged by as R.C.S. office
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR COOP. SOCIETIES,
GOVT. OF NCT OF
PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110002
F.6(1 2)/96/Estt./COOp./646 Dated
In order to streamline the work of conduct of election of Cooperative Societies by the Department, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies has been pleased to lay down the following norms and rate of ‘FEE’ to be paid to the Officers/Staff deputed to attend the location work:
The following rates of fee are fixed for the officers Election staff deployed to conduct the election of Cooperative Societies. These payments will be further subject to the provisions of SR 12:-
(a) For Returning Officer/ Election Officer
S No. Total number of member of Society Rate of Fee
1. 1 to 500 Rs. 375/-
2. 501 to 1000 Rs. 750/-
3. 1001 to 5000 Rs. 1800/-
4. 5001 and above/Apex Bodies Rs. 2250/-
Assistant Returning Officer appointed in category (3) shall be paid Rs. 375/- and Assistant Returning officer in category (4) shall be paid Rs. 750/-.
(b) For Other Staff
Class - IV Rs. 75/-
Grade – IV Rs. 105/-
Grade - III Rs. 120/-
Grade – II Rs. 135/-
In case election proceeding continue after double payment of ‘FEE’ shall be paid to the Other Staff present.
2. No Govt. transport will be provided by the Department. The expenditure towards transport arrangement shall be made by the society concerned.
3. Electricity and water charges @ Rs. 200/- shall be paid by the concerned society for their use.
Deputy Registrar (Admn.)
No. F.6(12)1961E5tt./COOp./64T6O Dated
1. All JRs/DRs/ARS/ & other branch Officers.
2. PA to RCS.
3. Guard file
Deputy Registrar (Admn).
11. Circular Regarding Election Expenses by Returning Officer
OFFICE OFTHE REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF
No. F47/98/Policy/R.C. S/99-2000/1954 Dated 30/5/2000
A lot of representations are being received form the Cooperative Banks/Thrift & Credit Societies that Election Officers detailed for holding the elections under the relevant provisions of law indulge in the expenses at the exorbitant level and there has been instances when the amount drawn has not been accounted properly as the same was not supplemented with proper vouchers. It is hereby ordered that in future all the Election Officers appointed would obtain the previous approval of the Joint Registrar concerned of the zone giving the detailed justification of the expenditure likely to be incurred in holding the Election of a particular Bank/Society including T/C Societies. The detailed account of the amount so drawn along with the supplementary expenses vouchers will be submitted to the concerned society/Bank within a week time of holding the Election. Serious view will be taken for any lapse in this regard.
Note : To be published in Sehkari Patrika also,
Copy forwarded to:
CED, Delhi State Coop. Union Ltd,
31, Netaji Subhas Marg., Daryaganj,
New Delhi-2 --with the request to publish in ‘Sehkari Patrika
Asst. Registrar (Policy)
12. No Election by Management in case of show cause notice issued to societies under section-32 without R.C.S. Clearance
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
Directive under Rule 77 of
Proceedings under section 32 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 are initiated against those Managing Committees of Cooperative Societies who fail to carry on the business of the concerned Cooperative Societies in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act and Rules framed there under, or for their failure to carry out the statutory duties cast on them under the Delhi Cooperative Act & Rules. It has been observed that some of the Managing Committees against whom proceedings under section 32 are pending before the Registrar Cooperative Societies, manage to conduct elections for the next managing committee either on their own or through the zonal office of the Deptt.
It is not appropriate to allow the managing committee of the society, whose conduct in carrying out the business of the society is under investigation under section 32 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, to be at the helm of affairs for conduct of elections of the managing committee as the electoral list, defaulters’ list and other documents relating to conduct of elections are prepared by the incumbent managing committees and possibility of manipulation of records to thwart a free and fair elections cannot be ruled out.
In view of the above I, R.K. Shrivastava, Registrar, Cooperative Societies in exercise of powers vested in me under Rule 77 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 do hereby direct that no election will be held by the incumbent managing committees of cooperative societies for election of next managing committee till proceedings under section 32 are pending before the Registrar Cooperative Societies.
Registrar Cooperative Societies
No. F 47/1
All Cooperative Societies in
The Chief Executive Officer,
Delhi State Cooperative Union Ltd.,
31, Netaji Subhas Marg, Daryagani,
Dy. Registrar (Policy)