VERMA, J.—Sheopat Ram, who was writ petitioner before the learned single Judge, is the appellant before us. Learned Single Judge dismissed his petition holding that the same is squarely covered by the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in Ram Rakh v. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 110/1991 decided on 05.3.1991. Aggrieved, Sheopat Ram has filed this Special Appeal.

(2) We may briefly notice here the facts giving rise to the writ petition and this appeal. The appellant is a member of Golawala Siyagon Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, hereinafter called the Samiti.

The Samiti is a duly registered Co-operative registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, hereinafter called the Act. Election of the Committee of the Society was to be held on 27.1.91. Election of the office bearers of the Society was to be held on 28.1.91. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Suratgarh appointed respondent No. 3 Babulal to be Election Officer for the said elections and issued order annexure I dated 16.11.90 with programme of election. According to this programme provisional voters lists to be published on 31.12.1990; objections were to be decided by 7.1.91 and final list had to be published the same day. Nominations were to be filed on 19.1.91 and scrutiny was to take place on 20.1.91.

(3). The case of the appellant is that provisional list of voters (Anx.2) was published by the Election Officer on 31.12.90 as scheduled. The final list was published on 7.1.91. However, the same day, the Election Officer directed the Manager of the Society to include names of 119 persons in the list, even though such 119 persons had neither deposited the requisite fee nor application was given by any such member till 7.1.91. The Manager refused to include these names. However, the Election Officer without any authority of law added these 119 names in the final list. It was pleaded that names of these persons were not entered even in the Register of members of the Society. It was pleaded that 119 persons, whose names had been added in the final voters list were not entitled to participate in the election inasmuch as they were not enrolled even as members of the Society. Upon such averments, the petitioner filed the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, on 15.1.91 i.e. much before the election and inter alia prayed as follows :—

"I. that by an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus or Certiorary or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. Election Officer non-petitioner may be directed not to allow 119 persons whose names are given in Anx. 3 to participate in the election on 27.1.1991.

II. Further by an appropriate writ, order or direction,inclusion of names of 119 persons on 7.1.1991 may be quashed and set aside.

III, That pending the writ petition if election takes place or any other order prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner is passed, then the same may also kindly be quashed and set aside."

(4). The petitioner also moved a stay application along with the writ petition. On this stay application, the learned single Judge passed the following order:—

"issue notice of the stay application. Meanwhile election may proceed and the 119 persons who have been added by the order dated 7.1.91 of the Election Officer may be provisionally permitted to exercise the right of vote (Anx. 3) and all those votes shall be kept in sealed cover and the result of the election shall not be announced."

It may be stated that the writ petition was admitted by the learned Single Judge.

(5). It appears that one Om Prakash, who was a candidate at the impugned election moved an application for being impleaded as a party. This application was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 18.2.91. Consequently, Om Prakash was so impleaded. He opposed this writ petition and filed a counter wherein it was alleged that 119 persons had become members of the Society on 17.7.1990. The Management Committee wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document