Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 368 (MP)

Rammohan Singh Gurjar v. State of M. P.

2013-03-18

G.D.Saxena, S.K.Gangele

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. The appellants have filed this Writ Appeal against the order date 7.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.88/2113. 3. In the writ petition before the writ Court the appellants questioned the process of election of Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Sanstha, Chinor, District Gwalior on the ground that there was no election at all and there was manipulation in the voter list. 4. Learned Single Judge vide order date 7.1.2013 dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the appellants have an alternative remedy under section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. 5. During pendency of the Writ Appeal, election of the society has been held and the results have also been declared. An application for intervention (I.A.No. 1075/2013) has been filed. In accordance with the aforesaid intervention application filed by Brakhbhan Singh, in the election all the persons have been declared unopposed. Copy of the declaration issued by the Returning Officer dated 21.12.2012 has been filed alongwith the application. In accordance with the aforesaid declaration and the diary of the Returning Officer, total 54 persons submitted their nomination papers and out of them 12 nomination papers were found valid. Two persons had withdrawn their nomination papers. Hence, the elections of the society were held unopposed because there were only 10 nomination papers for 10 posts. 6. From the aforesaid facts of the case, it is clear that out of 54 nomination papers only 12 nomination papers were found valid. This means that the Returning Officer rejected 42 nomination papers. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers without assigning any reason and the procedure prescribed under Rule 41 of the M.P.Cooperative Societies Rules, 1962 has not been followed. 8. From the perusal of the facts it is clear that out of 54 nomination papers, 42 nomination papers have been rejected and two persons had withdrawn their nomination papers and only 10 nomination papers were found valid due to which there was no election. In our opinion, prima facie, the facts are sufficient to inquire the matter because it could not be possible to reject 42 nomination papers. 9. In our opinion, prima facie, the facts are sufficient to inquire the matter because it could not be possible to reject 42 nomination papers. 9. Division Bench of this court in the case of Ghanshyam Tiwari v. State of M.P. and others reported in 2010 RN 290 = 2010 (3) MPLJ 407 has held that right to contest the election is an important right and availability of alternative remedy is no bar to entertain the petition if there was no election at all. Prima facie, from the facts of the case we are satisfied that in the present case, the petition of the appellant could not be rejected on the ground of availability of alternative remedy as argued by the learned counsel for the intervener and the State. However, the complete facts are not before this Court, hence, this court is not in a position to pronounce the judgment on the question of validity of the election. Hence, the order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The Dy.Registrar-Commissioner, Cooperative Societies, Gwalior – Respondent No.4 is directed to conduct an inquiry in regard to election of the Society i.e. Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Sanstha, Chinor, District Gwalior. The affected persons are at liberty to submit their case before the Dy.Registrar-Commissioner, Cooperative Societies, Gwalior. Looking to the facts of the case, newly elected body elected in pursuance to the notification dated 10.1.2013 filed along with the application for intervention shall not be permitted to work. Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.