Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2509 (ALL)

Shailendra Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2009-07-08

ANIL KUMAR, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2009
ORDER S. P. Mehrotra and Anil Kumar, JJ.—On a mention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner pressing urgency of the matter, the file of the present case has been summoned from the Registry as a fresh matter. 2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the voter list of 91 members of the co-operative society in question prepared by the Election Officer, and further, for directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 5.7.2009. 3. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the election of the committee of management of the co-operative society in question is going to be held on 9.7.2009. Copy of the election programme has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 4. We have heard Shri Kunwar R. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rakesh Bajpayee, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were 80 members in the society in question. On 7.7.2009, 11 new members have been inducted in the voter list, which is not permissible. 6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that as the election process has already started, no interference is called for 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.