Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Anr vs Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies & ... on 22 May, 2025
22.05.2025
Item No
AD 13
Saswata
WPA 11445 of 2025
Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited &
Anr.
versus
Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors.
Ms. Firdous Samim
Ms. Gopa Biswas
Mr. Altaf Hossain
Ms. Swati Dey
Mr. Saikat Mallick
Mr. Hasanuz Zaman Molla
...For the petitioners
Mr. Srijan Nayak
Ms. Rituparna Maitra
...For Cooperative Election Commission
Mr. Ankit Sureka
Mr. Biplab Das
...For the Registrar of Cooperative Society
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained
with the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia,
challenging issuance of notices dated 4th April, 2025 and 8th
May, 2025 by the Joint Registrar of Cooperaive Society and
R.O. Hooghly range to conduct fresh election of the
directors of Pahalampur SKUS Ltd (hereinafter referred to
as the "said Society").
3. At the very outset to counter the allegation raised by
the respondents as regards the authority of the petitioner
no.1 to challenge the above notices, Mr. Samim, learned advocate appearing in support of the petition would submit that although, the writ petition has been filed by the said Society as petitioner no.1, the petitioner no.2 to the petition is ready and willing to confine the writ petition to the petitioner no.2 who is one of the elected delegates and a office bearer of the society.
2
4. In view thereof, by treating the writ petition to have been filed by the petitioner no.2, an elected delegate in respect of the said society, the instant writ petition is being taken up for consideration by directing the name of the petitioner no.1 to be transposed as a proforma respondent in the petition.
5. Now proceeding with the controversy at hand, I find that it is the petitioner's case that the Election Commission had published an election schedule on 13th January, 2025 with regard to the conducting of the election of delegates. According to the petitioner, upon the election of delegates being completed, the election commission had notified the names of the elected delegates and such fact would corroborate from the list of the elected delegates prepared by the A.R.O on 14th February, 2025.
6. It is also the petitioner's case that the A.R.O. by a notice in writing dated 14th February, 2025 not only published the election schedule but had also, by a publication made in a Bengali daily "Yuga Sankha", notified the factum of holding of the election of the directors on 12th March, 2025. According to the petitioner not only the election was conducted on the said date but also consequent upon completion of such election, certificates were issued to the elected directors on the basis of Regulations 3(32) and 3(33) of the West Bengal Cooperative Election Commission Regulations, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Regulations"). It is still further submitted that prior to the directors assuming office, all the directors had taken oath as required in terms 3 of Section 32(5)(b) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act").
7. According to the petitioner, after the directors were elected, the office bearers of the said society were also elected and such fact would corroborate from the meeting/ resolution book which was duly counter signed by the ARO. confirming that the persons named therein had been unanimously elected as office bearers of the said society. The petitioner claims to have been elected as the secretary. According to the petitioner, all on a sudden the petitioner was served with a hearing notice on 28th March, 2025 regarding a complaint made by 11 delegates and on the basis thereof, the purported notice dated 3rd April, 2025 was issued. This followed publication of the notice dated 4th April, 2025 and the election schedule dated 8th May, 2025. According to Mr. Shamim, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies had purported to issued a notice dated 4th April 2025 without the sanction of law. He submits that without removal of the directors in a manner known to law, no election of the directors of the society is permissible. The consequential notice dated 8th May, 2025 publishing the election schedule is also untenable and should be stayed.
8. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appearing for the Cooperative Election Commission submits that in the instant case on the basis of an enquiry conducted at the instance of the 11 delegates, a decision was taken to conduct the election afresh. In support of his contention, he has placed before this Court a minutes/proceedings of hearing that took place before the R.O., Hooghly and Joint 4 Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Cooperation Directorate, Hooghly, vide notice dated 28th March, 2025. The same is retained with the record. He submits that there is no irregularity on the part of the election commission to proceed with the election of directors afresh, since on the previous occasion, 11 delegates had not been appropriately notified.
9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials on record, I prima facie find that in respect of the aforesaid said society, the Cooperative Election Commission had successfully conducted the election of delegates and subsequently had published the names of the elected delegates. Still later, a notice was issued for conducting the election of the directors and pursuant thereto, the directors were elected and certificates were handed over to the directors. Following the aforesaid, it would transpire that the office bearers of the said society were also elected in the meeting and the minutes/resolution was counter-signed by the A.R.O. Subsequently, a notice was issued on 28th March 2025 to enquire into the claim made by 11 delegates and following the aforesaid a direction has been issued for holding the reelection of the directors which is scheduled on 4th June 2025.
10. Prima facie, it would transpire that upon complying with all formalities, not only the directors but office bearers were elected. Nothing has been placed before this Court by Mr. Nayak to demonstrate that an election dispute within the meaning of Regulation 3(35)(1) of the said Regulations had been raised by the 11 delegates. Although, a 5 proceeding regarding the hearing of the complaint of 11 delegates has been placed before this Court, the same in my prima facie view cannot constitute as a decision in terms of the Regulation. In any event no final decision of setting aside the election of the directors of the society has been placed before this Court.
11. At this stage, when a new set of directors and a new set of office bearers had already been elected and taken office, there is very little scope to direct re-poll of the directors without any order setting aside the previous election process.
12. In view thereof, the petitioner having made a prima facie case, there shall be a stay of the notices dated 4 th April, 2025 and 8th May, 2025 till the matter is taken up next or until the end of July 2025, whichever is earlier. The respondent no. 2 is directed to file a report in the form of an affidavit before this Court disclosing all documents in connection with the complaint made by the 11 delegates, and to provide clarification as to whether any election dispute within the meaning of the said Regulation had been raised by the 11 delegates at whose instance the proceedings had been initiated.
13. Let such report along with all the records of the case be produced before this Court when the matter is taken up next.
14. List this matter in the combined monthly list of June 2025 marked as 17.06.2025.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)