Back
1999 Supreme(MP) 128
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. S. Garg
ASHOK SHUKLA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 542 Of 1997
Decided On : 02/11/1999
B.S.CRIVES, GREUHM JAIN, MANINDER BHATTI, PAVIA SHAH, R.K.THAKUR
The court emphasized the importance of a fair and impartial election process, free from external pressure and influence, and the significance of following the prescribed rules and procedures for conducting elections.
Headnote:
ELECTION LAW - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - ELECTION OF DIRECTORS - SCRUTINY OF NOMINATION PAPERS - REJECTION OF NOMINATION PAPERS - REVISED ELECTION PROGRAMME - POWER OF RETURNING OFFICER - VALIDITY OF ELECTIONS - DISPUTE RESOLUTION - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the revised election programme, rejection of nomination form, and the entire election process for the election of Board of Directors of a District Co-operative Central Bank. The petitioner alleged that the election process was contaminated and influenced by an interested party, leading to the rejection of his nomination paper and the election of an undesired group.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it could not enter into the arena of disputed facts and hold a fact-finding inquiry. The court observed that the scrutiny of nomination papers was adversely affected due to external pressure and intimidation, rendering the process unfair.
Issues: 1. Whether the returning officer had the authority to revise the election programme and re-scrutinize nomination papers already examined and accepted. 2. Whether the election process was contaminated and influenced by an interested party, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper and the election of an undesired group. 3. Whether the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative societies Act to file a dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that once a nomination paper is accepted or rejected, the returning officer cannot review it subsequently as they become functus officio. 2. The court refrained from delving into the disputed facts and allegations of contamination and influence in the election process due to lack of jurisdiction to conduct a fact-finding inquiry. 3. The court acknowledged the petitioner's alternative remedy under Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative societies Act to file a dispute.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed due to the court's inability to adjudicate on disputed facts and the availability of an alternative remedy for the petitioner.
( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india the petitioner seeks to challenge the changed election programme issued by the newly appointed returning officer, revised election programme dated 23. 1. 1997, the second revision election programme, the rejection of the nomination form dated 25. 1. 1997 and also challenges the entire election process for election of Board of Directors.
( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner is a representative of co-operative marketing society limited, Nagod, The election of the directors of the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Satna were due and for holding the elections a returning officer was appointed by the authorities. By order of the respondent No. 3 i. e. the Joint Registrar Co- operative Societies, Rewa Shri R. S. L. Shrivastava Dy. Collector Satna was appointed as the returning officer. By notice dated 9. 1. 1997 issued by the manager-cum-Secretary of the Bank annual general meeting was scheduled to be held on 28. 1. 1997. The Board of Directors were to be elected in the said general meeting. The election programme was published on 9. 1. 1997. The nomination papers were to be received between 11 a. m. to 4. 00 p. m. on 17. 1. 1997 and 18. 1. 1997. The nomination papers were to be scrutinised on 20. 1. 1997 and 21. 1. 1997 between 11. 00 a. m. to 4. 00 p. m. and for 21. 1. 1997 from 11. 00 a. m. till the subject was over. 22. 1. 1997 was the date fixed for withdrawal of the candidature. Final list of the candidates were to be published and symbol were to be allotted on 22. 1. 1997. The election was to take place on 28. 1. 1997. The results were to be declared on 28. 1. 1997 itself. Co-option against vacant seats and nomination against vacant seats were to be made on 29. 1. 1997 and 30. 1. 1997 respectively. The election of President, Vice-Presi- dent and representatives of other societies was to be held on 5. 2. 1997.
( 3 ) IN accordance with the election programme various candidates filed their nomination papers on 17. 1. 1997 and 18. 1. 1997. The petitioner filed two separate sets of nomination papers for his election for the post of director. On 21. 1. 1997 as per the election programme the scrutiny of the nomination papers were undertaken by the returning officer Shri R. S. L. Shrivastava. At the time of scrutiny of petitioner's nomination paper various objections were raised, the objections were heard and decided by the returning officer who found that one of the nomination paper seconded by Badri Prasad Tamrakar was not in accordance with law, he therefore, rejected the same. However, the other nomination papers seconded by Bhagwandas was found to be in order and was accepted. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 8 was very much interested in the result of the election, therefore, was trying his best to contaminate and pollute the atmosphere. At the time of scrutiny of nomination paper of Shri Kamlaker Prasad Chaturvedi, the respondent No. 1 pressurised the returning officer to reject the nomination paper of Shri Kamlakar Prasad chaturvedi. The respondent No. 8, according to the petitioner came in the office of the bank where the scrutiny was going on and attempted to over reach the office of the returning officer. People standing out side requested and then obstructed him forcibly. The respondent No. 4 while moving in the office where the scrutiny was going on, at that point of time the respondent No. 8 misbehaved with other persons, therefore, the first information report was lodged by Ravindra Sethi and others. The returning officer because of the surcharged atmosphere closed the scrutiny and, thereafter, the respondentno. 8 sent information and reports to Collector and R. S. L. Shrivastava that the illegal acts were committed by the petitioner and his associates. According to the petitioner respondent No. 8 immediately rushed to Bhopal where he exerted pressure upon the respondent No. 2 to
