The Returning Officer is required to consider all objections raised by members regarding the voters' list, but only if they are specifically mentioned in the objection letter.

JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---Heard the learned Advocates at length.

2.Rule, returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned Advocates. The petitioners have sought a relief of direction to the respondent No. 3 Returning Officer who was appointed to hold the Society-respondent No. 4's election, that he should consider the objections raised by the petitioners and modify the list of voters, finalised by the respondent No. 3 for the ensuing elections to be held on 6th December, 1998.

3.The petitioners have averred that they are the members and valid voters of the society. On 19-5-97 the society had appointed the respondent No. 3 as the Returning Officer to hold the elections. According to the election programme, he published a provisional list of the voters on 17-10-1998 and invited objections to the provisional voters list. The petitioners have further averred that after perusing the provisional voters list, they had submitted their objections to the said list pointing out several discrepancies including one that 222 members shown in the list were not legal and valid voters as their membership was not approved by the General Body meeting of the society. The petitioners, therefore, objected their names to be listed as voters and they requested the Returning Officer to delete their names from the final voters list. As an admitted fact, it may also be mentioned here that those 222 members were enrolled on 30-6-97 by the society. Those members were enrolled by the Managing Committee acting under the Bye laws and, therefore, it appears that their names were shown in the provisional voters' list. The petitioners have further submitted that the Returning Officer had accepted a number of objections raised by them and had corrected the provisional list of voters accordingly. However, he omitted to decide or he declined to decide the objections raised by the petitioners in respect of the invalid membership of the 222 members. He did not pass any order in respect of the aforesaid 222 members and he finalised the voters' list on 26-10-1998 as per the programme. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed that without staying the election, the alleged 222 members may be deleted from final voters list. On behalf the respondents No. 1 to 3, affidavit in reply has been filed. According to the said affidavit, the allegations and contentions of the petitioners were baseless and that, the Returning Officer had considered all the objections raised on behalf of the petitioners and had accordingly, corrected and published the final voters list.

4.Since the petitioners had exhibited an extraordinary urgency in the matter, I had heard them by taking the above petition out of turn. The main grievance, as submitted by the petitioners, is that the Returning Officer had not considered their objections in respect of 222 members as submitted on 23rd October, 98. It is pertinent to note that in the letter dated 23rd October, 98 by which the petitioners claimed to have raised objections to the provisional voters' list, the objection in respect of 222 members is no where found. There is no such objection in the said letter dated 23rd October, 98 that the 222 members were enrolled illegally as their membership was not approved by the General Body meeting. There is no such specific objection in the said letter and according to me, the Returning Officer has, therefore, rightly not decided and considered the said objection as it was not specifically mentioned in the said letter of objections. It appears that on 27-10-1998 the petitioners requested the Assistant Registrar to get a copy of the Bye laws of the society. It is, therefore, clear that without knowing the provisions of the Bye laws, the petitioners have merely thrown a pebble in the air and created an air wave. If they had no Bye laws then they had no source to know the legality or otherwise of the membership. It appears that the petitioners have also filed a revision on 30th October, 1998 to th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document