Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2913 (ALL)

KULDEEP BHARDWAJ v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-08-21

ASHOK SRIVASTAVA, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2009
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, inter alia, praying for quashing the Order/Letter dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow (respondent No. 2), and the Order/Notice dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Election Officer, Bulandshahr Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Limited (respondent No. 5). 2. It appears that Election programme in respect of various Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti was announced. The petitioner has filed nomination for election in respect of Bulandshahr Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Limited. 3. By the order /notice dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure No. 2), the Election Officer, Bulandshahr Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Limited (respondent No. 5) postponed the election on the basis of the recommendation made by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, and requested the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr to notify fresh dates for election. It was further recommended by the Election Officer, Bulandshahr Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti (respondent No. 5) that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow(respondent No. 2) be approached through the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr for holding election afresh.. 4. It appears that in the meantime, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow(respondent No. 2) issued order dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition) in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 postponing the election in respect of Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Limited, Bulandshahr. 5. The petitioner has thereupon filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above. 6. We have heard Sri K.N.Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and perused the record. 7. Sri K.N.Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Rule 432 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, in case, for any reason, election of any Co-operative Society has been disrupted by the District Magistrate, or the Election Officer, the process of election will commence from the stage at which it is disrupted or from a stage prior to that or de novo as the Registrar may decide. In view of the proviso to Rule 432 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, if nominations have been finalised and symbols have been allotted, the process of election shall continue and poll shall be held on such date as the Registrar may fix. 8. It is submitted by Sri K.N.Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, nominations have been finalised and symbols have been allotted, and therefore, the process of election should continue from the stage the same has been disrupted, and the election process should not start afresh. 9. It is further submitted by Sri K.N.Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner that as regards the allegations of discrepancies/anomalies being there in the voters’ list, the same are to be decided by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr. Section 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 should be read with Rule 229 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. 10. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that in view of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, the Registrar has power to postpone the election, and thereupon all proceedings with reference to the election shall be commenced afresh in all respects. 11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, in so far as the same is relevant, is re-produced below : “29. Committee of Management.—(1) to (2)................... 11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, in so far as the same is relevant, is re-produced below : “29. Committee of Management.—(1) to (2)................... (3) Election to reconstitute the Committee of Management of a co-operative society shall be completed in the prescribed manner under the superintendence, control and direction of the Registrar at least fifteen days before the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management and the members so elected shall replace the Committee of Management whose term expires under sub-section (2) : Provided that notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Administrator or the Committee of Administrators appointed under this section, as it stood before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Second Amendment) Act, 1994 shall continue to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Committee of Management till the Committee of Management is reconstituted under this Act or till December 31, 2000 whichever is earlier: Provided further that where the State Government is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it difficult to hold the election on the date fixed by the Registrar, it may direct the Registrar to postpone the election, and thereupon the Registrar shall postpone the election, and all proceedings with reference to the election shall be commenced afresh in all respects. (4) to (8)....................” Rule 432 of the U.P Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 is re-produced below : “432. If for any reason the election of any society has been disrupted by the District Magistrate, or the Election Officer, the process of election shall commence from the stage at which it is disrupted or from a stage prior to that or de novo as the Registrar may decide : Provided that if nominations have been finalised and symbols have been allotted the process of election shall continue and poll shall be held on such date as the Registrar may fix. 13. A perusal of Rule 432 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 shows that if for any reason the election of any Society has been disrupted by the District Magistrate or the Election Officer, the process of election shall commence from the stage at which it is disrupted or from a stage prior to that or de novo as the Registrar may decide. However, proviso to the said Rule provides that if nominations have been finalised and symbols have been allotted, the process of election shall continue and poll shall be held on such date as the Registrar may fix. 14. Therefore, in view of the proviso to the said Rule 432, if nominations have been finalised and symbols have been allotted, the process of election would continue and the poll would be held on such date as the Registrar may fix. 15. The above Rule 432 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 will have to be read with Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, inserted by the U.P. Act No. 6 of 1999 with effect from 24.12.1998, gives power to the Registrar to postpone the election of any Society, and all proceedings with reference to the election shall be commenced afresh in all respects. 16. Reading Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 with Rule 432 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, we are of the opinion that once the Registrar has exercised his power under the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, all proceedings with reference to the election shall start afresh in all respects, notwithstanding the provisions contained in the proviso to Rule 432 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968. The provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, framed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, will evidently be subject to the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. 17. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow (Respondent No. 2) by which the Registrar has postponed the election in exercise of his powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the U.P., Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Therefore, the election will be held on the fresh date to be announced by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow, and all proceedings with reference to the election shall be commenced afresh in all respects in view of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. 18. Therefore, the election will be held on the fresh date to be announced by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow, and all proceedings with reference to the election shall be commenced afresh in all respects in view of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. 18. The submission made by Sri K.N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard cannot, therefore, be accepted. 19. As regards the question as to who has jurisdiction to decide the allegations of discrepancies/anomalies in the voters’ list, we are of the opinion that the said question has not as yet been brought up for consideration. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow (Respondent No. 2) has postponed the election of Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Limited, inter alia, on the ground that various discrepancies/ anomalies in the voters’ list have been brought to the notice of the Registrar. Therefore, the question of decision regarding discrepancies/ anomalies does not arise in the present case. In the circumstances, we are not expressing any opinion on the said question. 20. It is to be further noticed that the order dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition) gives valid and cogent reasons for postponing the election in exercise of powers under sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. No illegality or infirmity has been shown in the said Order. 21. As regards the order dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure No.2 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Election Officer, the said order recommended that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow (Respondent No. 2) be approached through the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr for holding election afresh. In the mean-time, the said order dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition) was issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow (Respondent No. 2). Therefore, the order dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Election Officer, ceased to be relevant. 22. In view of the above, the Writ Petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 23. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. ————