Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 147 (ALL)

DHARMWATI DEVI v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-01-22

ARUN TANDON, HARSH KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri B.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of order of the Chief Election Commissioner dated 5.1.2015 as well as the election programme, notified thereunder. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that for the purposes of election of Branch Representative of Uttar Pradesh, Sahakari Gram Vikas Bank Limited, Branch Raya, District Mathura, the Election Officer had notified an election schedule, a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. According to the election schedule (i) the list of members was to be finalized on 14.11.2014, (ii) 15.11.2014 was fixed as date for nomination, (iii) scrutiny of the nominations was to be done on 17.11.2014 after which the list of valid nomination was to be declared on 17.11.2014, (iv) the last date for withdrawal of nominations was 17.11.2014 and (v) the date of allotment of the election symbol was notified as 18.11.2014 after which election if any had to take place on 25.11.2014. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the election programme so notified, the petitioner and one Sri Padam Singh submitted their nomination papers and on 17.11.2014, which was the date of scrutiny of the nominations, one Ramesh Chandra, who is said to have signed as proposer in the nomination papers submitted by Padam Singh, appeared before the Election Officer. He furnished his affidavit and stated that he has not proposed the name of Sri Padam Singh. It was stated that the nomination paper of Sri Padam Singh did not contain his signatures. The Election Officer proceeded to declare that there was only one nomination for the post, accordingly displayed the same on the notice board on 17.11.2014 itself at 2:45 p.m. 5. Because of notification of sole name of the petitioner, on the notice board of the election office on 17.11.2014, the petitioner has set up a case that in accordance with U.P. State Cooperative Society Election Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’), the petitioner is deemed to have been elected. Therefore, no further process of elections is required to be conducted. Therefore, no further process of elections is required to be conducted. It is his case that Chief Election Officer while considering the representation made by the petitioner in terms of the order of the High Court dated 9.12.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 65345 of 2014, have failed to appreciate the said aspect of the matter and, therefore, the order directing fresh election is bad. 6. Counsel for the respondent Sri N.K. Giri in reply points out that 17.11.2014 was fixed as the date for scrutiny of the nominations, on which date the Election Officer was not required to entertain any objections from any member or person in respect of nomination received. The very appearance of Ramesh Chandra and filing of affidavit by him at the time of scrutiny was uncalled for and unwarranted. He further submits that even if Sri Ramesh Chandra had made a statement or had filed an affidavit denying his signatures on the nomination papers, the minimum expected from the Election Officer was to issue notice to Padam Singh in writing so that he could have responded to the same. Reliance on the statement of the proposer is bad. 7. He submits that only after the election, the petitioner could have filed an election petition on the plea of wrongful acceptance of nomination of Sri Padam Singh. 8. He points out that recital in the reply submitted by Election officer to the effect that he had informed Sri Padam Singh of the stand of Sri Ramesh Chandra of his having not signed nomination papers as proposer is neither here or nor there. Inasmuch as the manner of alleged information to Padam Singh and the date, time and mode of such information has not been disclosed. 9. He explains that from the material which was before the Election Officer presence of Ramesh Chandra at the time of submission of the nomination is sufficient to establish that the nomination was valid and Ramesh had signed the nomination papers of Padam Singh in the presence of the Election Officer. It was under pressure from the petitioner, who was contesting the election, that Ramesh had denied his signature on the nomination. 10. The Chief Election Officer while directing fresh elections has examined all aspects of the matter and has rightly notified the fresh election schedule. 11. It was under pressure from the petitioner, who was contesting the election, that Ramesh had denied his signature on the nomination. 10. The Chief Election Officer while directing fresh elections has examined all aspects of the matter and has rightly notified the fresh election schedule. 11. In rejoinder-affidavit, counsel for the petitioner Sri H.R. Mishra took the Court through Rule 43 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh State Sahkari Samiti Election Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules’) in support of his contention. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. We are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the order of the Chief Election Officer directing fresh elections. Rule 43 (1) which has been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner reads as under : “43 (1) Where the number of valid nominations does not equal or exceed the number of persons to be elected, the election officer just after the withdrawal of nominations shall declare them to have been duly elected.” 13. From a simple reading of Rule, it is clear that the result of the Election is to be declared without voting only when the number of valid nomination does not equal or exceed the number of persons to be elected and the declaration in that regard has to be made by the officer just after the withdrawal of nominations. 14. On the basis of the statement of one Ramesh Chandra, the Election Officer decided to declare the petitioner as the sole candidate which was totally un-called for and unwarranted. We may record that the procedure followed by the Election Officer for entertaining the complaint in person from one of the proposer on the date of scrutiny of the nomination is totally unwarranted. He was bound to examine the nominations as presented before him with reference to the requirements of a valid nomination papers. Individual complaints were not required to be entertained on that date of scrutiny and that too ex parte. 15. We are of the considered opinion that the Election Officer has not acted fairly in the matter. He has lost sight of the fact that the proposer is required to sign the nomination papers in the presence of the election officer. Individual complaints were not required to be entertained on that date of scrutiny and that too ex parte. 15. We are of the considered opinion that the Election Officer has not acted fairly in the matter. He has lost sight of the fact that the proposer is required to sign the nomination papers in the presence of the election officer. The denial of such signatures subsequently by the proposer is meaningless and may not be entertained by the Election Officer specially because wrongful acceptance of nomination is itself a ground for questioning the elections by means of an election petition. 16. The Chief Election Officer in his impugned order has examined all aspects of the matter. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision of holding fresh elections in the facts and circumstances of the case. We may record that election schedule for the fresh election has been notified. The petitioner if so advised may participate in the elections. 17. The writ petition is dismissed. ——————