Back
1987 Supreme(All) 580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. N. VERMA, PALOK BASU, JJ.
OM PRAKASH - Appellant
Versus
SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MAWANA, DISTT.MEERNT - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 20481 Of 1987
Decided On : 16/12/1987
V.K.Goel
A party cannot take a volte face and contend that the voters list had not been finalised, after having earlier conceded that it had been finalised. All challenges to the validity of elections should be postponed until the elections are over and may be raised only before the tribunals created under the statute under which the right to seek election or to vote thereat it selt is conferred.
Headnote:
ELECTION - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - VOTERS LIST - FINALISATION - OBJECTION - ELECTION PETITION - JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - ESTOPPEL - CHANGE OF FRONT - INTERFERENCE WITH INTERMEDIATE STAGE OF ELECTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the election of the Managing Committee of the Mawana Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., a notified Society under Section 29 (3) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, on the ground that the Election Officer appointed to conduct the elections was proceeding to conclude the election without making a proper determination of the constituencies as contemplated by Rule 440 of the Rules framed under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was estopped from raising the objection that the voters list had not been finalised, as he had earlier taken a categorical stand before the court that the voters list had been finalised in accordance with law. The court also held that the objection raised by the petitioner should be entertained only after the elections were over and there too by way of an election petition rather than a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was estopped from raising the objection that the voters list had not been finalised? 2. Whether the objection raised by the petitioner should be entertained only after the elections were over and there too by way of an election petition rather than a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was estopped from raising the objection that the voters list had not been finalised, as he had earlier taken a categorical stand before the court that the voters list had been finalised in accordance with law. The court relied on the principle that a party cannot take a volte face and contend that the voters list had not been finalised, after having earlier conceded that it had been finalised. 2. The court held that the objection raised by the petitioner should be entertained only after the elections were over and there too by way of an election petition rather than a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court relied on the principle that all challenges to the validity of elections should be postponed until the elections are over and may be raised only before the tribunals created under the statute under which the right to seek election or to vote thereat it selt is conferred.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE petitioners are challenging the election of the Managing committee of the Mawana Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. (Respondent no. 3) which is a notified Society under Section 29 (3) of the U. P. Co-operative societies Act.
( 2 ) THE principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Election Officer appointed to conduct the aforesaid elections is proceeding to conclude the election for the Committee of Management without making a proper determination of the constituencies as contemplated by Rule 440 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act. The impugned elections have already been held on 8th November, 1987. The declaration of the result has, however, been withheld under an interim order granted by this court on 3-11-1987. The affidavits having been exchanged between the parties, we are proceeding to dispose of the petition finally at the stage of admission.
( 3 ) THESE are the assential facts for the determination of the controversy raised by the parties. The term of the last Committee of Management expired in the year 1980. Since then the Secretary of the Society is stated to be discharging the function of the Managing Committee exercising powers under Section 29 (4) (e) of the Act. On noting the phenomenon prevalent throughout the State, namely, of the terms of the Committees of Management of the notified Societies under Section 29 (3) having lapsed long since and no election for the committee of Management having taken place for years together, this Court passed a general order on 1-1-86 in Writ Petn. No. 14960 of 1986, raghubir Singh v. State of U. P,, Reportod in 1938 All LJ 529 directing the Registrar, ill whom the superintendence, direction and control of the elections of such Co-operative societies vests under Rule 439 (1), to ensure that the elections cf the committees of Management of the notified societies were completed within four months. Thereupon, the Registrar issued a notification dated 20-9-1986 direting the District Magistrates concerned to arrange for holding the election of such Societies. Later on in pursuance of the said order, the Sub-Divisional officer, Mawana was appointed to be the Election Officer for the election of the delegates (who constitute the general body for electing the Committee of management of the Society) as well as the Managing Committee.
( 4 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order of the Registrar, the Sub-Divisional officer, Mawana, as the Election Officer notified the programme for election of the delegates and the Commitee of Management. In accordance with this programme, election of the delegates in 14 constituencies into which the area of operation of this Society was divided by the Registrar under sub-rules (4)to (8) of Rule 440, were held. Om Prakash the petitioner No. 1 fought and was declared elected as a delegate from constituency No. 12. The respondents nos. 4 and 5 were also similarly elected from other constituencies. The results of the election of the delegates were announced on 5-11-86. Thereafter before the election of Committee of Management which was fixed for 29-12-86 could be concluded, the Registrar stayed the elections,
( 5 ) THE petitioner appears to have felt aggrieved by the continued delay in the election for Committee of Management and consequently approached this court by way of a petition Writ Petn. No. 4046 of 1987 in which the prayer was as follows :"to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature cf mandamus commanding respondents to complete the process of election from the stage which has already completed of the Managing Committee of respondent No. 3-Socieiy within the time stipulated by this Honble court".
( 6 ) IT is significant that the consistent plea throughout this petition was that the election of the delegates had already taken place and the voters list for electing the members of the Committee of Management had also been finalised and published according to law on 5-12-86 vide para 33
