Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 128 (RAJ)

Jog Singh S/o Jagat Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2024-01-18

NUPUR BHATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: “1. that the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed and the result qua the election of respondent no.6 to 12 as Directors of Ahore Cooperative Marketing Society, Ahore (Annexure-2) may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. That the respondent no. 6 to 12 may not be held eligible to contest election of the Chairman of Ahore Cooperative Marketing Society, Ahore. 3. That the respondent no.6 to 12 may further be held ineligible to participate in any proceedings of Ahore Cooperative Marketing Society, Ahore or any other body/committee/society. 4. That alternatively the Ahore Cooperative Marketing Society, Ahore may be dissolved and fresh elections throughout may be ordered to be held strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. 5. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. 6. Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent No.3-Rajasthan co-operative Election Authority Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur issued notification dated 22.01.2023 (Annexure-1) pertaining to election of different marketing societies of Jalore. Thereafter, the respondent No.4-Election Officer, Jalore published a provisional electoral role dated 28.03.2023. Furthermore the petitioner is fully eligible to contest the election for the Director of Ahore Cooperative Marketing Society and thereby he was elected as a Director of the aforesaid Society. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner during voting procedure got the information that the Election Officer has committed a grave illegality in declaring election result as well as in preparing the voter list of the election in question wherein ineligible candidates are appointed as Director of the aforesaid Society despite of the fact that the candidates (respondent No. 6 to 12) did not have the required eligibility wherein they were required to have share capital of Rs. 1000/- (10 shares of the respective society) in the aforesaid society 30 days prior to the date fixed for election and another mandatory condition that the contesting candidates must have business of minimum Rs. 5000/- with the respective society. 1000/- (10 shares of the respective society) in the aforesaid society 30 days prior to the date fixed for election and another mandatory condition that the contesting candidates must have business of minimum Rs. 5000/- with the respective society. Thereafter the respondent No. 4 declared the impugned result dated 12.04.2023 (Annexure-2) and permitted several candidates to cast their vote despite ignoring the aforesaid mandatory conditions. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved of the impugned election result dated 12.04.2023 (Annexure-2) declared by the respondent No.4 preferred this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the present petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy as provided under Section 58 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Election Officer has not followed the required mandatory conditions as prescribed under Rule 45 (6) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Rules, 2003 wherein it is clearly provided that the CEO shall provide the list of members 30 days prior to the date fixed for the poll. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the Section 15 (2) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 an application for admission as members of the Cooperative Society shall lie to the Committee of the respective Society and the said Committee shall decide the application and communicate its decision to the applicant, however, such application was never submitted by the private respondents No. 6 to 12 before the respective Committee. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have committed grave illegality by including the private respondents to cast their vote and contest election as they were not the members prior to 30 days from the date fixed for election. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Sheopat Ram v. State (DB special appeal no. 211 of 1991) decided on November 29, 1991. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under:- “27. After examining all these rulings, we are of the view that this Court can definitely intervene in extra-ordinary circumstances even before election, but then there should be some patent illegality of defect in preparation of electoral rolls. Inclusion of persons, as voters, who were admitted during the prohibited period as members, would be one of such cases. After examining all these rulings, we are of the view that this Court can definitely intervene in extra-ordinary circumstances even before election, but then there should be some patent illegality of defect in preparation of electoral rolls. Inclusion of persons, as voters, who were admitted during the prohibited period as members, would be one of such cases. There cannot be any hard and fast rule or cut and dired formula to decide what defect would be fundamental or what illegality so patent as to warrant interference. However, we are of the opinion that present case is not one as to call for interference from this Court.” 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further submitted that the as per the election schedule, the provisional voter list was published on 28.03.2023 and the objections were invited wherein the time limit to submit the objections was till date 03.04.2023 and the objections were duly decided by the Election Officer in accordance with the law. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State further submitted that on 06.04.2023 the names of eligible candidates for election in question were published and after the verification of the same the names of eligible persons were published. He also submitted that the petitioner did not raise any objection during the entire procedure of the election in question with regard to the respondent No. 6 to 12 and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the Election Officer committed illegality in the election procedure is absolutely false. 12. Learned counsel for the private respondents jointly submitted that before the publication of the final voter list, all the candidates had the requisite share capital in the aforementioned society and the respondents had deposited the requisite share capital before the start of the election process. It was also submitted that as per the Rule 14 (1) (viii) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003 any person will be deemed to be member of the society from the date of filing of application unless the society refuses the said application. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the as per the Section 34 (6) of the Act of 2001 once the process of election in the society starts, it shall not be stopped for any reason except for any natural calamity or breakdown of law and order. 14. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the as per the Section 34 (6) of the Act of 2001 once the process of election in the society starts, it shall not be stopped for any reason except for any natural calamity or breakdown of law and order. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Danda Rajeshwari versus Bodavula Hanumayamma and Ors reported in (1996) 6 SCC 199 and the learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the judgments passed by the coordinate bench of this Hon’ble High Court at bench Jaipur in the case of Bharat Lal Dugal v. Registrar, Sahakari Samiti, Rajasthan Jaipur (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1838 of 1986) decided on 14.04.1997; Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd vs The State Of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9754/2021) decided on 17 May, 2022; Babu Lal versus The state of Rajasthan and Ors (D.B Civil Special Appeal No 513/1992) decided on 21.03.1994. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and the judgments cited at the Bar. 15. Learned Counsel for the private respondent-State jointly submitted that the respondent-State after issuing the provisional voter list on 28.03.2023 had invited objections and the last date was 03.04.2023 but this Court finds that the petitioners have failed to raise objections and no pleadings in the writ petition have been taken in this respect that what prevented them from raising objections during the prescribed time limit. 16. It is seen that Section 58 of the Act of 2001 lays down the remedy of arbitration for certain disputes and sub-Section (2)(c) refers to any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society. The Section 58 of the Act of 2001 is reproduced hereunder:- “58. 16. It is seen that Section 58 of the Act of 2001 lays down the remedy of arbitration for certain disputes and sub-Section (2)(c) refers to any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society. The Section 58 of the Act of 2001 is reproduced hereunder:- “58. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society arises - (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or (b) between a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society, or (d) between the society and any other co-operative society, or (e) between the society and the surety of a member, past member or a deceased member, or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had transaction under section 52, whether such a surety is or is not a member of a society, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute: Provided that such disputes between the society and its employees, for which a remedy is available under the provisions of the service laws applicable on the employees, shall not be entertained under this section. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the following disputes shall also be deemed to be the disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely:- (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor, where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society: Provided that no dispute under this clause shall be entertained during the period commencing from the announcement of election programme and ending on the declaration of the results. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.” 17. The dispute in the present writ petition revolves around the final electoral list prepared by the Election Office on the ground that names of some members have wrongly been included in the final voter list and they were not having the eligibility to contest the elections as well. It is also contended that the persons have illegally been permitted to cast their votes and contest election as they were not members prior to 30 days from the date fixed for election. This Court finds that under Section 58 (2)(c) of the Act of 2001, the proviso specifically lays down that no disputes under this Clause shall be entertained during the period commencing from the announcement of election programme and ending on the declaration of the results. It is important here to note that the elections were held on 13.04.2023 and in compliance of interim order dated 13.04.2023 of this Court, the result was not declared by the respondents. 18. It is important here to note that the elections were held on 13.04.2023 and in compliance of interim order dated 13.04.2023 of this Court, the result was not declared by the respondents. 18. This Court finds that the coordinate Bench at Jaipur in the case of Shriram Khichad vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors (SBCWP No. 7795/2012) held that:- “A reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Akalakunnam Village Service Cooperative Bank Limited And Another Vs. Binu N. And Others, (2014) 9 SCC 294 has been given. Therein, after considering Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, it was held that writ is maintainable as the petitioner was not having remedy under the Cooperative Societies Act. The provision of Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act is somewhat similar to the provision of Section 58 of the Act of 2001, but the facts of two cases are distinguishable than the facts of this case. Therein, the dispute was not between the Cooperative Society and the employee, but was in regard to recruitment and appointment. Thus, the dispute was pre-appointment thus was not covered by Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act as before the appointment one is not considered to be an employee.” 19. The issue involved in the petition cannot be challenged by way of filing the present writ petition, as an efficacious statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the Act of 2001. It is also important to note that upon the declaration of the final voter list, the election process was being set up in motion and the election has already been held on 13.04.2023, therefore this Court should not grant indulgence while keeping into consideration the proviso under Section 58(2)(c) of the Act of 2001. 20. Thus without entering into the merits of the case the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy being available to the petitioner under Act of 2001. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.