Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2018
1
Writ Petition No.3510/2014
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH: (Vivek Agarwal, J)
Writ Petition No.3510/2014
Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Jigna, Datia
Vs.
State of M.P. and Others
Whether approved for reporting:
_______________________________________________
Shri Pratip Visoria, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Harish Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents/State.
ORDER
(Delivered on this Day of 09 March, 2018) Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 16.05.2014 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, whereby the Joint Registrar exercised authority in the provisions of Section 80-A of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act, 1960")for which result was declared on 10.01.2013 has been declared as null and void in the eyes of law.
(2) It is petitioner's contention that petitioner is a Primary Cooperative Assistant and a certificate of election was issued in favour of Smt. Dayavati Sharma, who was an 2 Writ Petition No.3510/2014 elected President of the said society. It is submitted that as per Section 64 of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, if any persons aggrieved by election of any Director or by the President of the Primary Society, he has a remedy of challenging said action under the Provisions of 64(2)(V) of the Act, 1960.
(3) It is further submitted that one Keshav Yadav had made a representation to the Joint Registrar on the basis of which a show cause notice was issued on 06.12.2013. Petitioner/society had filed a reply to the said show cause notice and has categorically denied the allegations made in the notice and it is also submitted that complainant himself is not a woman though complaint has been made in regard to election of a woman candidate and further that the powers under Section 80(A) of the Act, 1960 can only be exercised during the existence of the election and not once the election is over. It is submitted that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Joint Registrar to have interfered with the concluded election and thus, the impugned order deserves to be set- aside.
(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when there is a special provision, then general provision cannot be given effect to and has placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Ramanuj Tiwari Vs. M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal and Others as reported in 2008 Revenue Nirnay, 175. Similarly reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning, Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pardesh and Others as reported in AIR 1961 S.C.1170 to bring home the issue that the well 3 Writ Petition No.3510/2014 known Rule that construction is that general provisions yield to special provisions. It is submitted that the rule is whenever there is a particular enactment and a general enactment in the same statute and the latter, taken in its most comprehensive sense, would over rule the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only the other parts of the statute to which it may properly apply.
(5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case of Naresh Sharma Vs. Commissioner-cum-Registrar Co-operative Society, Bhopal and Others as reported in 2008 (5) M.P.H.T. 208, the Coordinative Bench of this Court held that since Election Officer is an subordinate to the Registrar, proceeding for conducting election is a "proceeding" as contemplated in Section 80-A of the Act in which Registrar can interfere exercising jurisdiction. It is submitted that there is no illegal in the impugned order called for interference. (6) The fact of the matter is that after amendment in the Cooperative Societies Act, similar issue as has been raised in this writ petition was before Division Bench of this High Court at principal seat, Jabalpur, in case of Vijay Tiwari Vs. M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal as reported in 2014 (4) MPLJ 708. While deciding the case of Vijay Tiwari (supra) in paragraph 19, Division Bench has discussed the judgment in case of Naresh Sharma (supra) and observed that the context of the said judgment was that the whole election was found to be sham on account of rejection of nomination papers without proper scrutiny. In paragraph 16, it has been held that Registration Officer 4 Writ Petition No.3510/2014 appointed under Rule 49-C of 1962 Rules is not appointed by the State Govt. to assist the Registrar and being not subordinate to Registrar it is beyond the power of Registrar under Section 80-A of 1960 Act to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any decision taken by Registration Officer. (7) In view of such decision of the Division Bench which has upheld the findings arrived at by the Cooperative Tribunal to the effect that the Additional Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction by entertaining an application under Section 80-A of 1960 Act against the order passed by the Registration Officer, this Court is of the opinion that in the light of availability of special provision for challenging the election, the Joint Registrar was not competent to exercise his authority under Section 80-A of the Act, 1960.
Thus, the impugned order having been passed without authority deserves to be set-aside and is set-aside. Petition is allowed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge mani SUBASRI Digitally signed by SUBASRI MANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=a649f7a3438773bf212183510475 MANI 3746385b9875063a47872ca437af06fff8ef, 2.5.4.45=032100B5FBD6FFB92D489F3787 9CB5EB91D2812611546B7D1562BEE45CE CD006142951, cn=SUBASRI MANI Date: 2018.03.12 12:47:52 -07'00'