Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2961 (ALL)

Raj Veer Singh v. State of U. P. & Ors.

2012-12-19

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, praying for quashing the publication made on 11.12.2012 regarding determination of constituencies for the elections of Co-operative Unions. We have heard Shri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 to 4. Leaned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 has raised a preliminary objection that the election process has already started, and the elections are due to take place on 28.12.2012, and 29.12.2012, and in the circumstances, no interference is called for in the present Writ Petition. Shri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the election process has started, this Court may interfere in exercise of its Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the illegality being committed by the concerned respondents. Shri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54959 of 2009, Raja Mahendra Aridaman Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others, decided on 23.11.2009. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the Writ Petition and Annexures thereto, it is evident that the election process has already started, and the elections are due to take place on 28.12.2012 and 29.12.2012. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that it will not be appropriate for this Court to exercise its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to hamper the on-going election process. It will be open to the petitioner to pursue such remedy as may be available to the petitioner under law before appropriate forum after the elections are over for seeking appropriate reliefs for redressal of his alleged grievances as raised in the Writ Petition. As regards the aforesaid decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54959 of 2009, Raja Mahendra Aridaman Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others, relied upon by Shri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, the said case was decided on the basis of the consent given by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. As regards the aforesaid decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54959 of 2009, Raja Mahendra Aridaman Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others, relied upon by Shri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, the said case was decided on the basis of the consent given by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Further, the said decision was given keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case, and the said decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Rule 444 C of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U.P. Co-operative 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 referred by the aggrieved party within forty-five days of the declaration of the result." From perusal of the above-quoted Rule 444 C, it is evident that the election in a Co-operative Society may be questioned by taking proceedings under the said Rule. 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 refereed to the Registrar after the declaration of the result of such election. It is, thus, evident that after the elections are over, it will be open to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings under the aforesaid Rule 444 C of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 read with the Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act,1965 for questioning the election in the Co-operative Society in question. It is, thus, evident that after the elections are over, it will be open to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings under the aforesaid Rule 444 C of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 read with the Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act,1965 for questioning the election in the Co-operative Society in question. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed subject to the observations made above. _____________