Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2508 (ALL)

Lal Bahadur v. District Magistrate, Bahraich

2009-07-08

ANIL KUMAR, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2009
ORDER S. P. Mehrotra and Anil Kumar, JJ.—The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for directing the respondents to consider the nomination of the petitioners on the post of delegate members of the co-operative society in question. 2. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the election programme for the post of delegate members for the co-operative society in question has been announced, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. As per the election programme, the date for withdrawal of nomination is 1.7.2009 and the election is to be held on 9.7.2009. 3. By the order dated 2.7.2009 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), nominations of the petitioners have been rejected on the ground that the signatures of the proposers could not be verified. 4. We have heard Shri D. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rakesh Bajpayee, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and perused the record. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the rejection of the nominations of the petitioners on 2.7.2009 has been illegally done by the Election Officer on the affidavit of the respondent Nos. 5 to 7. 6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that as the nominations of the petitioners were rejected on 2.7.2009, the Election Officer must have declared the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 as having been elected unopposed. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter, as the election process has already started, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. From the averments made in the writ petition, it is evident that the election process has already started, and 9.7.2009 has been fixed as the date for the election. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter. 9. Rule 444C of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 lays down as under : "444C. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter. 9. Rule 444C of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 lays down as under : "444C. (1) The election in a co-operative society shall not be called in question either by arbitration or otherwise except on the ground that— (a) the election has not been a fair election by reasons that corrupt practice, bribery or undue influence has extensively prevailed at the election, or (b) the result of the election has been materially affected— (i) by improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination, or (ii) by improper reception, refusal or rejection of voters, or (iii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or the bye-laws of the society. Explanation.—For the purpose of this rule corruption, bribery or undue influence shall have the meaning assigned to each under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. (2) A dispute relating to election shall be preferred by the aggrieved party within forty-five days of the declaration of the result." 10. In view of the provisions of the above-quoted Rule, it is evident that after conclusion of the election, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the election of the co-operative society on the grounds mentioned in the aforesaid Rule. 11. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 70 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 shows that dispute relating to an election may be referred to the Registrar after the declaration of the result of such election. 12. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.