IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vishal Dhagat, J.
Sayyed Akhtar Mustaq - Appellants
Vs.
State of M.P. and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6336 of 2020
Decided On : 01-12-2020
Election Authority - Jurisdiction to Cancel Election - M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Section 49G(3) - The court upheld the Election Authority's jurisdiction to declare fresh elections due to irregularities in the election procedure, as provided under Section 49G(3) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1962. The court emphasized the duty of the Election Officer to ensure free, fair, and impartial elections and concluded that the Election Authority was within its jurisdiction to order fresh elections based on the irregularities found in the election process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of the election of the Board of Directors of a cooperative society. The respondent Election Authority had cancelled the election due to irregularities in the election procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Election Authority's jurisdiction to cancel the election and order fresh elections based on the irregularities found in the election process.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Election Authority had the jurisdiction to cancel the election and declare a fresh election programme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Election Authority had the power to declare fresh elections under Section 49G(3) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1962, based on irregularities in the election procedure, and that there was no bar under proviso to Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, to declare the election void and order a fresh poll.
Final Decision: The petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, affirming the Election Authority's jurisdiction to cancel the election and order fresh elections.
ORDER :
Vishal Dhagat, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition taking exception to order dated 04.03.2020 passed by respondent No. 5 by which election programme of Board of Directors of Anantpur Grah Nirman Shahkari Samiti Maryadit, District Rewa was declared and election dated 11.09.2019 of Board of Directors of said society was cancelled.
2. Counsel appearing for petitioner has raised the question of law that election officer cannot cancel a concluded election and only remedy for cancellation of election is to file election petition under Section 64 of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
3. Respondent No. 5 had filed its reply and stated therein that complaint was received by answering respondent as well as by office of Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society, Rewa on 10.10.2019. Enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted that it is necessary to stop election process of society to ensure credibility of election process and there was serious doubts regarding manner in which election was conducted. As per the report dated 19.11.2019 entire election process of society was corrupted. Order to cancel election was passed under section 49-D of Cooperative Societies Rules 1962. It is further submitted that as per Section 57(f) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1960, it was duty of Election Authority to see that free, fair and impartial elections are conducted. In view of above, it has been submitted that order dated 04.03.2020 does not suffers from any illegality.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. On 11.09.2019, Election Authority had appointed S.N. Singh Senior Cooperative Inspector as Returning Officer of Anantapur Grah Nirman Shahkari Samiti Maryadit added District Rewa. Election programme was declared. Counting of votes was to be done in Special General Meeting of Society on 10.10.2019 and vacant post was to be filled up by 11.10.2019 and thereafter election of President and Vice President was to be completed by 14.10.2019. On 04.10.2019, valid nominations were total 19 in number. Thereafter, on 5.10.2019, list of 11 valid candidates were declared after withdrawal of nomination forms by some of the candidates. Since there were 11 posts, therefore, Returning Officer on 05.10.2019, declared that election is not necessary as valid candidates were only 11 in number. Returning Officer declared the result in General Meeting of Society on 10.10.2019. Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative Society had sent a report to Election Authority that on inspection of General Meeting on 10.10.2019, Returning Officer nor Manager of Society was found there. No application of Returning Officer for remaining absent in General Meeting was found. Society manager was called with all the documents, but he did not appear in the office of Deputy Commissioner and also switched off his cell phone. Election was not completed as per election programme on 10.10.2019 and there was break in continuity of election procedure. Members of society were not informed and elections conducted were suspicious. Joint Commissioner has sent his opinion along with the enquiry report that returning officer S.N. Singh has not conducted elections as per the procedures and election process has vitiated. On basis of said report, impugned order dated 04.03.2020 was passed and election was cancelled.
6. Question before the Court is whether Election Authority has jurisdiction to cancel the election and declare fresh election programme for elections?
7. As per rule 49 G(3) (a) of M.P Cooperative Societies Rules, 1962, election authority on receipt of a report and after taking all material circumstances into account can declare the poll at polling booth to be void and appoint a day and fix hour for taking fresh Poll at polling booth and direct Returning Officer to notify the day so appointed and hour so fixed in such manner as it may deem fit. If there is a irregularity in procedure as is likely to vitiate the poll, Election Authority can give direction to Returning Officer to
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.