Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2227 (ALL)

AJAY KUMAR DHAKA v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-09-21

HET SINGH YADAV, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2012
Het Singh Yadav, J. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the election of the Committee of Management of the Co-operative Society in question held on 29.10.2012. We have heard Shri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 has raised preliminary objection that for questioning the validity of the election of the Committee of Management of the Co-operative Society in question, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Rule 444 C of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, framed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and in the circumstances, no interference is called for in the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Shri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, and the Writ Petition may be entertained despite the existence of such alternative remedy. Having considered the preliminary objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, we are inclined to accept the same. Rule 444 C of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 lays down as under: "444-C.( 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 the People Act, 1951. 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 the People Act, 1951. ( 2) A dispute relating to election shall be referred by the aggrieved party within forty-five days of the declaration of the result." Proviso to sub-section ( 1) of Section 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act 1965 shows that the dispute relating to an election may be referred to the Registrar after the declaration of the result of such election. The petitioner, thus has an alternative remedy of taking proceedings under the aforesaid provisions for questioning the validity of the election held on 29.10.2012 on the grounds mentioned in the aforesaid Rule 444C. In view of the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions, and keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the present case, we are not inclined to exercise our Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, and the same is dismissed on the said ground.