The Election Officer has the power to alter the reservation of constituencies under Rule 444-A (3) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, even after the candidates have filed their nomination papers, where a grave and patent mistake is discovered by the Election Officer prior to the final voting.

( 1 ) THE dispute is about the election of the Managing Committee of Co-operative Cane Development Society Ltd. , Pilibhit (the Society for short) which is a notified Society within the meaning of the proviso to Section 29 (3) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. The general body of the Society consists of the delegates elected by the members of the Society. The petitioner is an elected delegate of the Society. He is aggrieved by an order dated 4-6-1987 whereby the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Pilibhit acting as the Election officer upheld the objection filed by one Ramesb Kumar Sharma and directed that the reservation of constituencies ordered by him earlier by his notice dated 26-5-87 be altered in so far as Jahanabad and Jiraunia are concerned. Previously in the notice dated 26-5-1987 the Election Officer had declared Jahanabad as a reserved constituency for scheduled caste and Jiraunia for the weaker section. By the impugned order, he declared Jiraunia to be the reserved constituency for scheduled caste and Jahanabad for the weaker section. The petitioner contends that the Election Officer having once notified the reservation of various constituencies in a particular way, he had no power to make alteration in the reservations.

( 2 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties we find no merit in the above contention. The power to reserve constituency vests in the Election officer under sub-rule (3) of Rule 444-A. It provides that the Election Officer, shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6) of Rule 440 reserve constituencies/areas for weaker section or, as the case may be, of women and such reservation shall be made to the extent of seats reserved by rotation in Hindi alphabetical order of the names of the constituencies/areas from which members of the committee of Management are to be elected. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 440 lays down the criteria for determiaation of constituency. These are : (i) revenue area or areas, (ii) class or classes of membership; (iii) other rotational basis in relation to area or operation of Society. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that clause (ii) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 440 would also bring in consideration of whether the members in a particular constituency belong to scheduled caste etc. Consequently, while reserving constituencies under Rule 444-A (3) the Election Officer shall have to have regard the class or classes of membership of constituency also. In the present case the petitioner filed his nomination for election as a member of the Committee of Management from Jiraunia constituency which was according to the notice issued by the election Officer on 26-5-1987 then reserved for the weaker section claiming himself to be one belonging to weaker section. 4th June 1987 was fixed for consideration of the objections filed against the nominations. On 3-6-87, two objections were filed relevant for our purpose one, by the petitioner against the nomination filed by one Khoob Chand and the other by Ramesh kumar Sharma (the newly impleaded respondent No. 3 ). The latter objection was filed inter alia on the ground that Jahanabad constituency was wrongly declared by the Election Officer as reserved for the scheduled caste candidates in as much as in that constituency there was only one member belonging to scheduled caste whereas Jiraunia had six members belonging to scheduled caste. The objection further states that the procedure prescribed under rule 440 for specifying the reservation of various constituencies had not been followed by the Election Officer before the issue of the earlier notice dated 26-5-1987. In both the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been asserted that the objections were taken up on 4-6-1987 and were heard id the presence of the petitioner. We find no reason for disbelieving the assertion made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Co-operative Case development Union, Pilibhit