Manipur High Court
Waikhom Jiten Singh vs Th. Sabanam Devi on 7 February, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar, Lanusungkum Jamir
KABORA Digitally signed Items 1-3
by
MBAM KABORAMBAM (Through video-conferencing)
SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2022.02.07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
SINGH 17:12:09 +05'30' AT IMPHAL
WA No. 38 of 2021
and
WP (C) No. 18 of 2022
with
MC [WP(C)] No. 10 of 2022
***
WA No. 38 of 2021 Waikhom Jiten Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o (L) W. Chaoba Singh of Heingang Mayai Leikai, P.O. - Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, District - Imphal East, Manipur, 795002.
...Appellant Vs.
1. Th. Sabanam Devi, aged about 42 years, D/o Th. Surangajit Singh of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West-District, Manipur - 795001;
...Principal Respondent
2. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary (Co-operation), Govt. of Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West-District, Manipur, Pin - 795001;
3. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, Office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S.-Lamphel, District-Imphal West, Manipur, Pin - 795004;
4. The Returning Officer, Election to the Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-opertative Bank Ltd., MG Avenue, Imphal, Manipur, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Head Office), MG Avenue, P.O. - Imphal & P.S.-City P.S., Imphal West-District, Manipur, 795001 and
5. The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Director/General Manager, Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., office at MG Avenue, P.O.-Imphal & P.S.-City P.S., District- Imphal West, Manipur, Pin - 795001.
...Official Respondents
6. Shri. Huidrom Kesho Singh, aged about 66 years, of Singjamei Kakwa Huidrom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West- District, Manipur, Pin-795003;
W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 1
7. Shri Th. Debeshwari Devi, aged about 46 years of Singjamei Makha Waikhom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, District - Imphal West, Manipur, 795001;
8. Shri Khomdram Brajakumar Singh, aged about 58 years, of Uripok Sorbon Thingel, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West-District, Manipur, 795001;
9. Shri Moirangthem Shyam Singh, aged about 61 years of Heirangoithong, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, District-Imphal West, Manipur, 795001 and
10. Shri Leimapokpam Chaoba Singh aged about 76 years of Singjamei Chirom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, District- Imphal West, Manipur, 795001.
...Respondents W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022 Waikhom Jiten Singh, aged about 51 years, S/o (L) W. Chaoba Singh, resident of Heingang Mayai Leikai, P.O. Mantripukhri, & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur., 795002 ...Petitioner Vs.
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Addl. Chief Secretary (Co-op) Government of Manipur, at Old Secretariat Building, Babupara, Imphal West, Manipur. Pin - 795001.
2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Manipur, having its office at Lamphel, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur - 795004.
3. The Returning Officer, Election to Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. at M.G. Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City, District Imphal West, Manipur - 795001 ...Respondents with MC [W.P. (C)] No. 10 of 2022 [Ref: W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022]
1. Shri Maibam Sunil Kumar Singh, aged about 53 years old, S/o. Maibam Shantikumar Singh, Laipham Khunou Mayai Leikai, Laipham Siphai, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795002.
2. Shri Khumukcham Lebanon Singh, aged about 46 years old, S/o Kh. Ingocha Singh, a resident of Thangmeiband, Khoyathong Polem Leikai, Lamphelpat Sub-Division, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur -
795001
...Applicants
W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 2
Vs.
1. Waikhom Jiten Singh, aged about 51 years, S/o. (L) W. Chaoba Singh, a resident of Heingang mayai Leikai, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795002.
...Respondent
2. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/Secretary (Co-op), Government of Manipur at Old Secretariat Building, Babupara, Imphal West, Manipur, Pin-795001.
3. The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Govt. of Manipur, having its office at Lamphel, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur - 795004.
4. The Returning Officer, Election to Delegates and Board of Directors of the Imphal Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. at M.G. Avenue, P.O. Imphal & P.S. City, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
...Proforma Respondents BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR For the appellant/writ petitioner : Mr. M. Devananda, Advocate For the respondents and the : Mr. Lenin Hijam, Additional A.G. applicants in MC [WP (C)] No. 10 of Mr. M. Hemchandra, Sr. Advocate.
2022 Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Julius Riamei, Advocate
Date of hearing and reserving of : 24.01.2022
Judgment
Date of Judgment & Order : 07.02.2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Sanjay Kumar (C.J.):
[1] The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited is a co-operative
society registered under the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976, (for brevity, 'the Act of 1976'). As per its Bye-law No. 32, the management of the affairs of the Bank is to vest in a Board of Directors which would have a term of 5 years. The Bye-law provides that one month before the expiry of the term of W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 3 the outgoing Board, the Bank must call for a Representative General Meeting to elect new members and such election is to be conducted by an independent body/authority constituted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur (in short, 'the Registrar'), in accordance with the Election Rules of the Bank. [2] However, it appears that there was no election to the Board of Directors of the Bank for a long time which led to the filing of writ petitions, viz., W.P. (C) Nos. 536 and 549 of 2017, before this Court. These writ petitions were allowed by common order dated 06.09.2017, whereby the Registrar was directed to ensure that election to the Board of Directors of the Bank was held within a time frame. Institution of Contempt Case (C) No. 205 of 2017, alleging disobedience to the order dated 06.09.2017, finally resulted in positive action. The Returning Officer, appointed by the Registrar, finalized the list of voters and election of Delegates from different Groups of shareholders/ members was held on 29.04.2018. Thereafter, Notice dated 03.11.2018 was issued by the Bank notifying the elected Delegates that election to the Board of Directors for the term 2017-18 to 2021-22 would be held on 02.12.2018. Protracted litigation relating to the proposed election resulted in the process hanging fire till date. [3] Historic narrative being rather long and tortuous, it would be apposite to recount only facts pertinent to the present adjudication: By Notice dated 12.11.2018, the Returning Officer informed candidates for election to the Board of Directors that at the time of scrutiny of their nomination papers, they should be personally present along with the Proposer and Seconder. The scrutiny was to be taken up on 17.11.2018 for Groups A to F and on 19.11.2018 for Groups G to L. Upon completion of such scrutiny, the Returning Officer issued Notice dated 20.11.2018 recording that the documents submitted by fifteen candidates were in order but five of them were ineligible to W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 4 contest the election for violation of Bye-law No. 33 of the Bank's Bye-laws. The names of the five ineligible candidates and of the ten eligible candidates were detailed in the Notice dated 20.11.2018.
[4] Aggrieved by the rejection of their candidature, the five Delegates who were found ineligible, filed Co-operative Revision No. 3 of 2018 before the Manipur State Co-operative Tribunal at Lamphelpat. The Tribunal disposed of the revision, vide order dated 18.03.2019, quashing/setting aside the Notice dated 20.11.2018 on the ground that it was not sustainable and recording that the parties to the revision had agreed to continue the election from the stage of scrutiny of the nomination papers. Notably, the ten eligible candidates named in the Notice dated 20.11.2018 were not made parties to this revision. [5] Challenging the aforestated order dated 18.03.2019, two amongst the ten eligible candidates named in the Notice dated 20.11.2018, viz., Yumnam Kumar Singh and Th. Sabanam Devi, filed CRP (CRP. Art. 227) No. 17 of 2019 before this Court. This revision was disposed of by order dated 18.12.2019. Therein, this Court observed that the Notice dated 20.11.2018 was found to be unsustainable only in so far as the five ineligible candidates were concerned and that the apprehension of the petitioners, two out of the ten eligible candidates, was misplaced and misconceived as they were found to be qualified. This Court held that there was no manner of indictment in so far as the ten eligible candidates were concerned and that the Tribunal's order could not be made applicable to them. It was concluded that no order was required to be passed at the behest of the petitioners who had no cause of action to file the revision in view of the fact that no relief has been sought against them by the five ineligible candidates.
W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 5 [6] Significantly, by letter dated 16.12.2019, the Registrar informed
that the five ineligible candidates named in the Notice dated 20.11.2018 were also found qualified to contest the election to the Board of Directors. He further stated that the ten eligible candidates, who were declared so in the Notice dated 20.11.2018, would also be allowed to contest the election. [7] At this stage, it may be noted that, apart from the fifteen candidates named in the Notice dated 20.11.2018, six other Delegates were also candidates for election to the Board of Directors. However, they were excluded at the threshold by the Returning Officer as they had failed to present themselves along with their Proposers/Seconders, in terms of the Notice dated 12.11.2018. One of these six candidates, viz., Waikhom Jiten Singh submitted representation dated 27.03.2019 to the Registrar asserting that insistence on the presence of Proposers/Seconders was contrary to Rule 26 of the Rules for Election of Delegates and Directors of The Imphal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited (in short, 'the Rules') and requesting modification or cancellation of the Notice dated 12.11.2018 issued by the Returning Officer. He requested that he should be allowed to participate in the election to the Board of Directors of the Bank by conducting a fresh scrutiny.
[8] Waikhom Jiten Singh then filed W.P. (C) No. 722 of 2019 before this Court complaining of inaction on his representation and praying for a direction that he may be allowed to participate in the election of Directors of the Bank by conducting fresh scrutiny. This writ petition was disposed of by one of us, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Lanusungkum Jamir, on 10.09.2019, taking note of the submission made on behalf of Waikhom Jiten Singh that he would be satisfied if the Registrar was directed to consider and dispose of his representation dated 27.03.2019. The Registrar was accordingly directed to consider and W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 6 dispose of his representation dated 27.03.2019 in accordance with law within one month.
[9] Consequent to this direction, the Registrar issued order dated 22.10.2019. Therein, he noted that Notice dated 12.11.2018 issued by the Returning Officer required the personal presence of the candidate's Proposer and Seconder but Rule 26 of the Rules did not mention anything about such presence and directed the Returning Officer to reconsider the nomination papers which were rejected due to non-appearance of the candidate's Proposer/Seconder. Pursuant thereto, the Returning Officer issued Order dated 26.11.2019 proposing to conduct re-scrutiny on 05.12.2019. By Corrigendum dated 29.11.2019, the Returning Officer termed his earlier communication dated 26.11.2019 as a 'Notice' instead of an 'Order'. Having undertaken the re-scrutiny, the Returning Officer issued Notice dated 05.12.2019. Therein, he observed that nomination papers of the six candidates, including Waikhom Jiten Singh, had been found to be in order but one amongst them, viz., Huidrom Kesho Singh, was not eligible to contest the election for violation of Bye-law No. 33 of the Bank's Bye-laws. [10] W.P. (C) No. 1009 of 2019 was filed by Th. Sabanam Devi, an eligible candidate named in the Notice dated 20.11.2018, assailing the order dated 22.10.2019 issued by the Registrar and the consequential Order, Corrigendum and Notice dated 26.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019 respectively issued by the Returning Officer.
Independently, two other Delegates of the Bank filed W.P. (C) No. 1059 of 2019 before this Court, assailing the letter dated 16.12.2019 addressed by the Registrar, informing that the five ineligible candidates, W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 7 named in the Notice 20.11.2018, along with the ten named eligible candidates, were qualified to contest in the election.
Prior to these two cases, W.P. (C) No. 207 of 2019 was filed by Th. Sabanam Devi and 2 others seeking expeditious conduct of the election. [11] These three writ petitions, along with the miscellaneous cases filed therein, were disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court, vide common judgment and order dated 21.06.2021. The learned Judge allowed W.P. (C) No. 1009 of 2019 and quashed/set aside the order dated 22.10.2019 of the Registrar and the consequential proceedings of the Returning Officer. W.P. (C) No. 1059 of 2019 was disposed of taking note of the fact that CRP (CRP. Art.
227) No. 17 of 2019 had already been disposed of on 18.12.2019 and holding that no grounds were made out to invalidate the letter dated 16.12.2019 of the Registrar. W.P. (C) No. 207 of 2019 was allowed and the authorities were directed to expedite the process of election to the Board of Directors of the Bank in view of the Notice dated 20.11.2018 issued by the Returning Officer. The authorities were directed to hold the election to the Board of Directors from amongst the eligible candidates, strictly as per the Bye-laws of the Bank and as per the applicable law, as expeditiously as possible. The miscellaneous cases were all dismissed.
[12] At that stage, WA No. 36 of 2021 was filed by third parties to W.P. (C) No. 207 of 2019 aggrieved by the direction of the learned Judge that the process of election should go on as per the Notice dated 20.11.2018 of the Returning Officer. When this appeal came up for hearing before this Bench on 16.08.2021, it was noted that the Notice dated 20.11.2018, as it originally stood, could no longer be acted upon in the light of intervening circumstances and the orders passed by the Tribunal and this Court in relation thereto. The W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 8 Bench noted that all the fifteen candidates named in the Notice dated 20.11.2018 would be entitled to contest in the election and passed an interim order permitting them to participate in the election which was scheduled to be held on the next day, i.e., 17.08.2021. However, the result of the election was directed not to be declared till the next date of hearing and it was observed that holding of the election would be subject to further orders of this Court in that appeal and other connected matters.
[13] Thereafter, when the said appeal was taken up on 26.10.2021, this Bench was informed that the election had been held on 17.08.2021 as per the interim order dated 16.08.2021 and, therefore, the direction of the learned Judge to act upon the Notice dated 20.11.2018, as it originally stood, could no longer be given effect to. As the limited grievance of the appellants in the said appeal stood settled, the same was recorded and the writ appeal was disposed of making the interim order dated 16.08.2021 absolute in so far as parties to that appeal were concerned.
[14] The connected matter, W.A. No. 38 of 2021, was filed by Waikhom Jiten Singh, who was arrayed as respondent No. 10 in W.P. (C) No. 1009 of 2019, assailing the common judgment and order dated 21.06.2021, in so far as it pertained to the quashing of the order dated 22.10.2019 of the Registrar and the consequential proceedings dated 26.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019 of the Returning Officer.
No interim order was passed in this writ appeal.
[15] While so, as the election to the Board of Directors was held on 17.08.2021 and he was not permitted to participate therein, Waikhom Jiten Singh filed W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022. Therein, he stated that he had submitted an application on 29.12.2021 to the Registrar to initiate arbitration of disputes W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 9 in relation to the order dated 22.10.2019 of the Registrar and the consequential proceedings of the Returning Officer. He further stated that letter dated 03.01.2022 has been addressed by the Under Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur, to the Registrar, asking him to declare the result of the election held on 17.08.2021 and by letter dated 05.01.2022, the Registrar requested the Returning Officer to proceed with the declaration of the election result at the earliest. Pursuant thereto, the Returning Officer issued Notification dated 06.01.2022 stating that the result of the election would be declared on 13.01.2022. Aggrieved thereby, Waikhom Jiten Singh sought quashing of the letters dated 03.01.2022 and 05.01.2022 and the Notification dated 06.01.2022. He sought a further direction for reference of the disputes to arbitration pursuant to his application dated 29.12.2021. [16] This writ petition was listed before a learned Judge of this Court on 10.01.2022 and the learned Judge expressed the view that it would be appropriate to place the case before the concerned Division Bench to decide whether the interim order dated 16.08.2021 in W.A. No. 36 of 2021 would still subsist after passing of the final order dated 26.10.2021 therein. This observation was made in the context of the argument advanced on behalf of Waikhom Jiten Singh that the said interim order dated 16.08.2021 barred declaration of the election result. The learned Judge deemed it appropriate to stay the declaration of the result till the next date as the writ petition would become infructuous otherwise.
[17] On 18.01.2022, MC [W.P. (C)] No. 10 of 2022 was filed in W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022, by a Delegate and a Member of the Bank seeking to be impleaded as respondents No. 4 & 5 in the writ petition. They sought such W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 10 impleadment to assist this Court in the context of the term of the newly elected Board of Directors.
[18] The writ petition was listed on 19.01.2022 and this Bench opined that it would be appropriate that the hearing of W.A. No. 38 of 2021 be expedited as the writ petition hinged on the result thereof. The Registry was accordingly directed to list the writ appeal and the writ petition on 24.01.2022. The interim order granted in the writ petition was extended till then. [19] On 24.01.2022, Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner; Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur, appearing for the State authorities; Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 in the writ appeal; Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel, appearing for the applicants in MC [WP(C)] No.10 of 2022; and Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for the Bank; advanced final arguments and judgment was reserved. The interim order in the writ petition was extended till pronouncement of the judgment. [20] At the outset, it may be noted that the prayer of Waikhom Jiten Singh in W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022 is utterly misconceived and bereft of merit. The order dated 22.10.2019 of the Registrar and the consequential proceedings dated 26.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019 of the Returning Officer have already been quashed by a learned Judge of this Court, vide the common judgment and order presently under appeal. Unless Waikhom Jiten Singh succeeds in W.A. No. 38 of 2021 filed by him against the quashing of the aforestated order and proceedings, the question of his seeking arbitration in relation thereto does not arise. Further, as no interim order was granted in W.A. No. 38 of 2021 interdicting the election or the declaration of the result therein, his challenge to the letters dated 03.01.2022 and 05.01.2022 and the W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 11 Notification 06.01.2022 is also misconceived. Reliance placed by him upon the interim order dated 16.08.2021 passed in W.A. No. 36 of 2021 and the final order dated 26.10.2021 passed therein is equally misplaced. It may be noted that the interim order dated 16.08.2021 made it abundantly clear that the election was to be held on 17.08.2021, as scheduled, with the fifteen candidates whose names found mention in the Notice dated 20.11.2018. As the said writ appeal was pending, the result of the election was directed not to be declared till the next date of hearing. This Bench also made it clear that the holding of the election would be subject to further orders in that appeal and other connected matters. Thereafter, when W.A. No. 36 of 2021 was taken up on 26.10.2021, this Bench was informed that the election has been held on 17.08.2021 and that the appellants therein no longer had any issue. This Bench accordingly noted that the limited grievance of the appellants stood settled and disposed of the appeal making the interim order dated 16.08.2021 absolute in so far as the parties to that appeal were concerned. Be it noted that Waikhom Jiten Singh was not a party to that appeal and he, therefore, cannot seek to garner any benefit therefrom or under the final order. In any event, the making of the interim order absolute was only for protecting the election which had been conducted pursuant thereto and not to interdict declaration of the election result for all times to come. The very holding of the election will be rendered redundant by such an interpretation of the final order. [21] In so far as the writ appeal is concerned, Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel, would contend that the order dated 22.10.2019 and the consequential proceedings dated 26.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019 of the Returning Officer were not liable to be set aside as the candidature of Waikhom Jiten Singh had been rejected on wholly unsustainable grounds and W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 12 his prayer for fresh scrutiny of his nomination was not unjustified. Learned counsel would point out that Rule 26 of the Rules deals with scrutiny of nomination papers and reads to the effect that all nomination papers received in time should be scrutinized by the Returning Officer and during the course of scrutiny, the Returning Officer may demand reliable confidential reports from the Bank regarding past relationship of the candidate with the Bank. Nomination papers found invalid had to be rejected and reasons for rejection were to be noted on such nomination papers. Learned counsel would point out that there is no requirement in the Rule that the candidate's Proposer and Seconder should be present in person on the date of scrutiny and, therefore, the Notice dated 12.11.2018 issued by the Returning Officer, insisting on such presence, was invalid. He would state that the representation dated 27.03.2019 made by Waikhom Jiten Singh, pointing out this aspect, was not considered constraining him to approach this Court by way of W.P. (C) No. 722 of 2019 and, by the order dated 10.09.2019 passed therein, the said writ petition was disposed of directing consideration and disposal of the representation dated 27.03.2019 in accordance with law within a time frame. Learned counsel would therefore contend that the Registrar was fully justified in passing the order dated 22.10.2019. To demonstrate the Registrar's power to do so, learned counsel placed reliance on Rule 44 of the Rules:
'Rule 44. Interpretation:
Should there be any doubt in the interpretation or meaning of any of these Rules, the decision of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Manipur, in this behalf, shall be final.' Learned counsel would assert that the order dated 22.10.2019 was passed by the Registrar in exercise of the power vested in him under the above Rule and, in consequence, neither the said order nor the proceedings of W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 13 the Returning Officer were invalid in law. He would pray for setting aside the judgment and order under appeal in so far as it quashed the aforestated order and proceedings.
[22] Per contra, Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur, would contend that the Registrar and the Returning Officer both committed errors in relation to the election process. He would argue that the Returning Officer was at fault in insisting upon the presence of the candidate's Proposer and Seconder at the time of scrutiny of the nominations, as such a prescription was not there in the Rules. However, incorrect rejection of a nomination, per the learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur, would not entail fresh scrutiny or re-scrutiny of the rejected nomination, as there is no legal provision that enables the same. He would therefore assert that the Registrar was equally in error in passing the order dated 22.10.2019 requiring the Returning Officer to undertake re-scrutiny of the nominations of those who were excluded due to absence of their Proposers/Seconders. He would accordingly submit that the judgment and order under appeal, to the extent it invalidated the Registrar's order dated 22.10.2019 and the consequential proceedings, does not warrant interference in appeal.
Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel, appearing for the Bank, adopted the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur. [23] Supplementing those arguments, Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel, appearing for Th. Sabanam Devi, would state that Waikhom Jiten Singh was well aware of the Notice dated 20.11.2018 issued by the Returning Officer dealing with the candidature of only fifteen Delegates, wherein he did not even find mention, and point out that he never chose to challenge the same. Further, when he filed W.P. (C) No. 722 of 2019, he did W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 14 not even disclose that the said Notice had been issued by the Returning Officer, whereby he stood completely excluded from consideration. That apart, when he received the Notice dated 12.11.2018 of the Returning Officer, requiring the presence of the Proposer and Seconder of the candidates, Waikhom Jiten Singh kept quiet and did not choose to challenge the same. It was only on 27.03.2019 that he chose to submit a representation that the said Notice was invalid. Further, though W.P. (C) No. 722 of 2019 was filed long after the issuance of the Notice dated 20.11.2018, he did not choose to challenge the same therein and, on the contrary, went to the extent of suppressing it altogether. Learned senior counsel would also argue that once the nomination of a candidate stood rejected, it would be a ground for challenge in an election petition and there is no procedure prescribed under the Act or the Rules enabling re-scrutiny or fresh scrutiny of a rejected nomination. He would, therefore, pray for confirmation of the judgment and order dated 21.06.2021 in this regard.
[24] Having given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions of all the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that no grounds are made out for appellate interference. Waikhom Jiten Singh was clearly lacking in bonafides when he approached this Court by way of W.P. (C) No. 722 of 2019. Therein, he chose to suppress the fact that the Returning Officer had issued Notice dated 20.11.2018, restricting consideration to the nominations of only fifteen candidates. Further, he has no explanation to offer as to why he did not choose to challenge the Notice dated 12.11.2018 of the Returning Officer in time, though the dates of scrutiny fixed thereunder were 17.11.2018 and 19.11.2018. In any event, the order dated 10.09.2019 passed in the said writ petition merely required the Registrar to dispose of his representation in W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 15 accordance with law. Therefore, there was no positive mandate and it was for the Registrar to deal with the said representation as per the applicable law. In this regard, it may be noted that there is no provision either in the Act of 1976 or the Rules framed thereunder or the Rules framed by the Bank which enabled re-scrutiny or fresh scrutiny of nominations after they stood rejected.
Rule 44 of the Rules, upon which much stress has been laid by Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel, is wholly inapplicable as it deals with a situation where there is any doubt about the interpretation or meaning of any of the Rules and in such an event, the decision of the Registrar is given finality. In the case on hand, the Returning Officer did not raise or entertain any doubt for application of Rule 44. He scrutinized the nominations in the manner he deemed fit and eschewed some nominations at the threshold. In effect, he rejected those nominations. Be it noted that Rule 44 does not empower the Registrar to exercise appellate or revisional power over such decisions of the Returning Officer, even if they be erroneous. Therefore, once the Returning Officer took a decision and rejected any nomination, the Registrar had no role to play in relation thereto, whereby he could direct fresh scrutiny or re-scrutiny, as was done by him under the order dated 22.10.2019.
[25] The only remedy available in the context of an invalid rejection of a nomination is to take recourse to Section 91 of the Act of 1976. Section 91(1) provides, inter alia, that any dispute touching the election of office bearers shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute to the Registrar. Section 92(1)(d) provides that when the dispute is in respect of an election of an office bearer of the society, the limitation for referring the dispute to the Registrar would be one month from the date of the declaration of the election result. Section 93 empowers the Registrar, if he is satisfied that a matter referred to W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 16 him is a dispute within the meaning of Section 91, to decide the dispute himself or refer it for disposal to a nominee or a Board of nominees appointed by him. Section 96 states that the Registrar or his nominee or Board of nominees may, after giving the parties to the dispute a reasonable opportunity of being heard, make an award on the dispute. Such an award, subject to any appeal or review or revision, is to be binding on the parties to the dispute. Section 97 provides that an appeal would lie to the Tribunal against the decision of the Registrar or his nominee or Board of nominees.
[26] In the light of the aforestated scheme, the Registrar had no authority or power to direct fresh scrutiny or re-scrutiny of the nominations that had already been rejected by the Returning Officer. Trite to state, interference with an election process after its initiation would be permissible only on limited grounds and invalid rejection of a nomination is not one such ground. The order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Registrar and the consequential proceedings dated 26.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and 05.12.2019 of the Returning Officer were thus wholly unsustainable in law. The judgment and order under appeal, holding to that effect, therefore does not brook any interference. [27] Further, as already noted supra, the prayers of Waikhom Jiten Singh in W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022, presuming that he would be successful in W.A. No. 38 of 2021, are liable to be rejected. That apart, he cannot seek to draw any benefit from the orders passed in W.A. No. 36 of 2021 which were limited to the parties thereto. In any event, a stray sentence from the order passed therein cannot be twisted out of context, without reference to the import of the full order, so as to claim that the result of the election held on 17.08.2021 is not to be declared for all times to come. In the light of the W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 17 disposal of W.A. No. 36 of 2021, there is no impediment whatsoever to the declaration of the result of the election held on 17.08.2021.
MC [W.P. (C)] No. 10 of 2022 filed in W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022 is also liable to be rejected. The applicants therein seek to raise the issue of the term of the Board of Directors now elected. However, this aspect does not arise for consideration either in the writ appeal or in the writ petition and it is not open to the applicants to seek to enlarge the scope of these cases by introducing a new issue that may constitute a separate cause of action. [28] The writ appeal and the writ petition are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed in W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022 is vacated. MC [W.P. (C)] No. 10 of 2022 filed in W.P. (C) No. 18 of 2022 is also dismissed. The result of the election held on 17.08.2021 shall be declared in accordance with due procedure.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE FR/NFR Sandeep W.A. No. 38 of 2021; & Ors. Page 18