By the Court.—The question involved in this case is, whether the final determination of the constituencies of a co-operative society can be set aside on the ground that in view of,

The second proviso to Section 29(3) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (the Act), the provisional determination of the constituencies should have been published again on postponement of the elections; and

The second proviso to Article 243ZJ of the Constitution, two constituencies ought to have been reserved for women,.

THE FACTS

2. The petitioner is a member of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited, Goonda Kunwar, Block Vikram Jot, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti (the Goonda-Kunwar co-operative society).

3. The Goonda-Kunwar co-operative society is a primary level co-operative society. The elections, in such primary co-operative societies, were held in the year 2009 and their term is three years. It is coming to an end in 2012.

4. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lucknow (the Registrar) by notification dated 1.6.2012 published the election schedule for the elections of such co-operative societies.

5. In pursuance of the election schedule, a provisional determination of the constituencies was published on 30.6.2012 and objections were invited.

6. However, before the objections could be filed and decided, the elections were postponed by the notification dated 3.7.2012 (the Notification). This was done on the ground that the elections of the local bodies were also being held.

7. In the notification, a fresh schedule of the elections was also published. In this schedule, 10.9.2012 is fixed for the elections of the delegates of these primary co-operative societies.

8. It is said that no fresh provisional determination of constituencies was published. However, the same provisional determination of the constituencies was taken and objections were filed against the same. These were decided.

9. The objections in respect of two primary co-operative societies were accepted but the objections against rest of them (including against the Goonda-Kunwar co-operative society) were dismissed on 12.7.2012.

10. The aforesaid result of final determination of the of the constituencies was published in the newspaper dated 20.7.2012. Hence, the present writ petition.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

11. We have heard Shri HR Mishra and Shri Uma Nath Pandey, counsel for the petitioner; and the Standing Counsel for the respondents. The following points arise for determination in the case:

(i) Whether in the circumstances of the case, provisional determination of the constituencies should have been published again, as the election was adjourned on 3.7.2012;

(ii) Whether in view of second proviso to Article 243ZJ:

(a) Two constituencies for women and one for the Scheduled Caste/ Schedule Tribe only should have been reserved; and

(b) No constituency should have been reserved for the backward class.

1st POINT: NO PREJUDICE TO THE PETITIONER

12. The counsel for the petitioner submits that :

The elections were postponed on 3.7.2012. All proceedings should have commenced afresh in view of the second proviso to Section 29(3) of the Act;

The provisional determination of constituencies should have been published again after 3.7.2012 and then the objections should have been invited.

13. The standing counsel submits that the submissions of the petitioner should not be considered on the ground that:

The determination of the constituencies is not part of the election process. The second proviso to Section 29(3) is not applicable to it; and

In case determination of the constituencies is part of the election process then the writ petition should not be entertained. The petitioner should be relegated to the election petition after elections are over.

14. It is not necessary to consider the submission of the respondents as we are not entertaining objection of the petitioner for the reasons mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs,.

15. The 2nd proviso of Section 29(3) of the Act (see be