1. Challenge to election process of managing committee under Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. (Para 6 )
Back
Next 
2005 Supreme(SC) 1644
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. Lahoti, CJI., G.P. Mathur, J.
Vadodara District Co-operative Sugarcane Producers' Union Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Chandrakantbhai Thakorebhai Patel & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2639 of 2005 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7946 of 2005]
Decided On : 15-04-2005
High Courts should avoid staying co-operative society election processes midway; challenges should be heard on their merits without interrupting the scheduled elections to ensure the ends of justice.
Headnote:(A) Co-operative Societies Law - Election of Managing Committee - Interference by High Court - High Court ought not to have stayed the process of election midway - Writ petition should have been heard on merits without staying the process of election to meet the ends of justice. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
Elections for the Managing Committee of a co-operative society were in progress. A writ petition challenging the legality of certain steps taken for the purpose of holding the elections was filed. The High Court interfered with the process midway and set aside the election programme and all subsequent steps shortly before the scheduled polling date.
Findings of Court:
The High Court ought not to have stayed the process of election midway. The writ petition should have been heard on merits but without staying the process of election to meet the ends of justice.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in staying the election process midway.
Ratio Decidendi: To meet the ends of justice, a challenge to an ongoing election process should be heard on its merits without staying the process of election midway.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over legality of steps taken for holding elections; High Court stayed election process midway. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. High Court ought not to have stayed election process midway; writ petition should have been heard without stay. (Para 7 )
4. Courts should not stay election process midway; elections should proceed and be subject to final decision. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; elections to proceed as notified subject to writ petition outcome. (Para 8 )
6. Should a court stay an election process midway?
No, the court should hear the writ petition on merits without staying the election process. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
R.C. Lahoti, CJI.
Issue notice.
2. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1, present in the Court on caveat, takes notice.
3. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are proforma parties so far as the matter before us is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No. 4 is supporting the petitioner.
4. Leave granted.
5. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and in view of a short question arising for decision in this matter, the appeal is heard finally.
6. The elections of the Managing Committee required to be held as per Chapter XI-A of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 were in progress. In a writ petition laying challenge to the legality of certain steps taken by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the purpose of holing the elections, the High Court interfered with the election process midway, allowed the writ petition and set aside the election programme & all steps taken in accordance therewith. The order of the High Court was passed on 7th April, 2005, while the elections were scheduled to be held on 17th April, 2005. The aggrieved respondent No. 3 in the High Court has filed this appeal by special leave.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have stayed the process of election midway. We feel that the writ petition should have been heard on merits but without staying the process of election and that would have met the ends of justice.
8. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The elections will be held as notified. If the authorities feel that a fresh date for polling is to be appointed, then they may do so. The elections so held shall be subject to the final decision by the High Court in the writ petition. The writ petition in the High Court shall stand restored on the file of the High Court for being heard and decided on its own merits uninfluenced by any observation made in the impugned judgment.
9. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear in the High Court on 9th May, 2005.
