Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 52 (MP)

Jaipal Singh v. State of M. P.

2013-01-07

SHEEL NAGU

body2013
ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails process of election of the respondent No. 5 Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Maryadit, Akola District Datia on various grounds including improper preparation of voters list and non-compliance of the notice period for publication of voter list provided in Clause (c) sub-rule (3) of Rule 23 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1962. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard and the record is perused. 3. Cooperative society in question has filed caveat and its counsel has contended that some resolution has been passed by the society dismembering some of the petitioners on certain grounds, which has not been challenged by the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the State while relying upon the decision in the case of Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2007 RN 283 = 2007 Volume 3 MPHT Page 70 and 526 has contended that when the election programme announced and process of election is set in motion, any dispute pertaining to election ought not to be adjudicated in writ petition in view of the availability of alternative, efficacious and statutory remedy of Dispute under section 64 of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (Act of 1960 for brevity). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Naresh Sharma Vs. Commissioner-cum-Registrar Co-operative Society, Bhopal and others 2008 RN 130= 2008(5) MPHT 208 and has contended that the Registrar can very well go into the legality, validity and propriety of the list of voters published by the society. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the elections are directed to be conducted based upon the voter list in which names of large numbers of valid members have been wrongly deleted, then the election would be rendered a farce, as there would be no election in the eyes of law. 6. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the elections are directed to be conducted based upon the voter list in which names of large numbers of valid members have been wrongly deleted, then the election would be rendered a farce, as there would be no election in the eyes of law. 6. A perusal of the decision in the case of Naresh Sharma (supra) of the Single Bench of this Court indicated that the factual scenario attending the instant case and that of the case of Naresh Sharma, is quite different as in the case of Naresh Sharma, the challenge was made to the order of Commissioner-Cum-Registrar cancelling the election of a cooperative society and the argument of the petitioner therein that once the process of election commences, the same cannot be cancelled, was repelled by this Court on the ground that section 80A of the Act of 1960 empowers the Registrar to exercise jurisdiction to test the legality, validity and propriety of any order or proceedings. The Single Bench of this Court in the case of Naresh Sharma (supra) upheld the order of Registrar cancelling the election on the ground that there was no election in the eyes of law and the election so conducted was an empty formality. In Naresh Sharma’s case, the elections had already been held and decision by higher authorities had been taken before the matter came to be scrutinized by the writ Court. 7. Whereas, in the instant case, voting in the election is scheduled for 8.1.2013. Since the election programme has already been declared and the polling is round the corner, this Court prefers to be persuaded by the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) 8. More so the controversy raised in this petition involves various disputed questions of fact which can very well be raised and adjudicated in a dispute by the petitioners under section 64 of the Act of 1960 after the election is over. 9. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition at the present stage and dismisses the same with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy available under section 64 of the Act of 1960. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this petition stands dismissed.