Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Baljeet Singh S/o Gurmel Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4511 of 2023
Decided on : 07-10-2023
Election Dispute - Voter Eligibility - Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, Rule 45(6) - The court discussed the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules, emphasizing that the Election Officer should consider the turnover of the financial year preceding the date of election when determining voter eligibility. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the relevant date is the date of issuance of the election notification and held that the Election Officer was required to ascertain the turnover of the financial year 2022-23 for the election scheduled on 10.04.2023.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the final voter list, arguing that the Election Officer wrongly considered the turnover of the financial year 2021-22 instead of 2022-23, making them ineligible to vote.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the preliminary objection and decided to address the question of law before the election process. It held that the Election Officer should have considered the turnover of the financial year 2022-23 for voter eligibility.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Election Officer correctly determined voter eligibility based on the turnover of the preceding financial year.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Election Officer should consider the turnover of the financial year preceding the date of election when determining voter eligibility, as per the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Election Officer was directed to exclude the petitioners' votes from the election result.
ORDER :
I.A. No. 01/2023 :
1. The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the applicant – the elected member of the Society, seeking his impleadment as party respondent.
2. Instead of impleading the applicant as party respondent, he is allowed to intervene.
3. Application stands disposed of, accordingly.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4511/2023 :
1. The petitioners have approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, with the assertion that the respondents have wrongly issued final voter list dated 02.04.2023.
2. Before advancing his arguments, Mr. Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioners apprised the Court of the facts appertain and submitted that the election programme was firstly issued by the State Co-operative Election Officer on 27.03.2023. In furtherance thereof on the same day, the election officer, respondent No.4 issued provisional Voter List and election promramme indicating therein that the concerned person or persons will be eligible to file their objection(s) from 27.03.2023 to 02.04.2023 till 1:00 PM. According to him, the petitioners filed their objection but by discarding the same, the final voter list has been issued on 02.04.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners approached this Court on 04.04.2023 itself, before the election process, as a matter of fact, was put in motion, as the date of submitting nomination form was 05.04.2023.
4. Mr. Sandhu submitted that as per by-law 9/6 of the By-Laws of the Societies, minimum required turn over for an individual member or society to be eligible to vote is, as fixed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. And such turn over limit has been fixed by the Registrar by the order dated 28.04.2014 and accordingly, in case of an individual member, the same has been fixed as Rs.5,000/- and for the purpose of Society, the turn over has been fixed as Rs.50,000/- in the financial year preceding the year of election.
5. Learned counsel argued that as the date of election was 10.04.2023, the Election Officer was required to consider petitioners’ turn over for financial year 2022-23 (01.04.2022– 31.03.2023) for which period, the petitioners have carried out transactions of more than of Rs.5,000/-, the minimum turn over required as per the order dated 28.04.2014 from an individual member of the society to exercise the right to vote.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner No.1 had transacted a business of about Rs.5044/- in financial year (2022- 23) and so was the position of the remaining petitioners, hence, they were eligible, though their transactions of financial year 2021-2022 were Zero or below Rs.5,000/-.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners read the order dated 28.04.2014 and highlighted that in no ambiguous terms the order dated 28.04.2014 provides that the turn over of the financial year preceding the date of election has to be seen and argued that as the date of election in the instant case was 10.04.2023, the respondent no.4 was supposed to take into account the turn over of the financial year 2022-23 and not of the financial year 2021- 22, as has been done by the respondent No.4 while preparing final voter list dated 02.04.2023.
8. Learned counsel submitted that immediately after the issuance of provisional voter list on 27.03.2023, the petitioners have lodged their objection on 01.04.2023 with the documentary evidence of their turn over (more than Rs.5,000/-) and requested the respondent No.4 to include their names in voter list, but their request had been turned down by the respondent no.4, for the reason that the turn over of financial year 2021-22 was to be taken into account and not of the financial year 2022-23.
9. Learned counsel argued that going by the order of Registrar dated 28.04.2014, the approach adopted by the respondent no.4 was clearly erroneous and the final voter list, which he has issued on 02.04.2023 is, the
The main legal principle established is that the Election Officer should consider the turnover of the financial year preceding the date of election when determining voter eligibility, as per the Raja....
The court emphasized the need for sound reasons and due procedure to re-fix the cut-off date, and quashed the impugned orders dated 03.10.2023.
The court ruled that the provisional voters' list must be based on the correct date as per statutory rules, emphasizing compliance with election regulations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that objections to the provisional voters list for co-operative society elections must be within the jurisdiction of the Election Officer and must ....
Disputes regarding electoral rolls must be addressed through statutory remedies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, not via writ petitions.
The prescribed procedure under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, including provisions for challenging voter identity and preventing impersonation, must be fol....
The court ruled that names cannot be included in the voters' list after the election declaration date, emphasizing the Authorized Officer's duty to act independently and in accordance with the law.
Maharashtra State Co-operative Election Authority - Cut-off date for election - Election Authority rejecting to extend cut off date without recording sufficient reasons has not been exercised judicio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
