Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2706 (ALL)

Harendra Yadav v. State of U. P. & Ors.

2012-11-22

HET SINGH YADAV, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2012
Het Singh Yadav, J.— The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, making the following prayers: " I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.3 and 4 to ensure that the members enrolled by the Administrators of the Sahkari Sangh may not be allowed to participate in the election process of the Sahkari Sangh as per the direction/order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies U.P. Lucknow vide his order/letter dated 17.10.2012 and delete the names of the two constituencies Narre and Beladar from the final deternination of the constitituencies of Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Gagha Block ; Gagaha. II. Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. III. To award the cost of this petition to the petitioner." We have heard Shri R.S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 5, and perused the record. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is in regard to the enrolment of members by the Administrator of the Sahkari Sangh and entitlement of such members to participate in the election of the Sahkari Sangh. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 submits that the election of the Sahkari Sangh has already taken place on 20.11.2012, and in the circumstances, the prayers made in the Writ Petition have lost their relevance. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 further submits that in case, the petitioner has any grievance in regard to the election held on 20.11.2012, it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to the proceedings under Rule 444C of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, on the grounds mentioned in the said Rule. 1 to 5 further submits that in case, the petitioner has any grievance in regard to the election held on 20.11.2012, it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to the proceedings under Rule 444C of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, on the grounds mentioned in the said Rule. Rule 444 C of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 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. (2) A dispute relating to election shall be preferred by the aggrieved party within forty-five days of the declaration of the result." In view of the provisions of the above-quoted Rule, it is evident that in view of conclusion of the election, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the election in the Cooperative Society on the grounds mentioned in the aforesaid Rule. In view of the above discussion, the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed. _____________