Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 396 (UTT)

DEEP CHAND v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2018-07-20

K.M.JOSEPH, SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Exemption Application No. 10513 of 2018 is allowed. 2. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The appellant sought the following reliefs in the writ petition :- “a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the entire election of Committee of Management of Bahudeshiya Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Horrawala. b) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the final notification dated 04.07.2018 published in daily news paper Dainik Jagran (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) for election of Committee of Management of Bahudeshiya Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Horrawala. c) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to apply roster for reservation to Rudrapur seat of Village Rudrapur in election of Committee of Management of Bahudeshiya Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Horrawala." 3. The learned Single Judge, we are told by the learned counsel for the appellant, has dismissed the writ petition (this we say for the reason that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not produced along with the appeal). In fact, it is submitted that the appellant has not received the copy of the judgment. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would press for a decision in the matter. This is for the reason that, as can be noticed from the reliefs sought, the election of the Committee of Management of Bahudeshiya Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Horrawala is to be held on 22.07.2018. 5. The complaint raised by Shri Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the appellant, is that though under Rule 450 of the Uttarakhand Co-operative Societies Rules, 2004, upon publication of the provisional list, a right is given to the Member to file objection and it is liable to be considered. In this case, the command of the law has been observed in its breach. The appellant filed objection to the provisional list within time, but the impugned final list has been published. He would also refer to us to Rule 415 of the Uttarakhand Co-operative Societies Rules, 2004 to contend that it contemplates reservation in favour of the categories mentioned therein. The appellant filed objection to the provisional list within time, but the impugned final list has been published. He would also refer to us to Rule 415 of the Uttarakhand Co-operative Societies Rules, 2004 to contend that it contemplates reservation in favour of the categories mentioned therein. His complaint actually is, apparently, that though reservation in terms of the said Rules may have been done, in respect of the village from which the appellant comes, though for 25 years it remains unreserved, the benefit of reservation is not made available in relation to the said village. 6. We notice that, in fact, the impugned final list was published on 04.07.2018. The writ petition is filed on 18.07.2018 only. Therefore, we would think that for this belated approach, particularly, when election is to take place on 22.07.2010, there is no explanation forthcoming from the appellant. That apart, we would think that the election process has already been commenced and it has reached a point nearing the culmination of the process in the sense that election is actually to be held on 22.07.2018. 7. In fact, Shri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel would also submit that Election Petition is the remedy for violation of the Rules. 8. Therefore, without prejudice to any remedy available under law, the Appeal will stand dismissed. No order as to costs.