IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Pranay Verma, J.
Arun Khoche – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9083 of 2023
Decided On : 04-05-2023
Election Dispute - M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Sec. 64(2)(v) - Sec. 62(2)(v) - The court discussed the provisions of Sec. 64(2)(v) and Sec. 62(2)(v) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another to conclude that no interference can be made in the election process at the stage of preparation of the electoral roll. The court held that the petitioners have an efficacious remedy to approach the competent authority against the impugned order, and thus dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the elections of a society, alleging that the elections were being conducted on the basis of an old voter list, which they claimed to be incorrect and faulty.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petition was not maintainable and no interference in the election process could be made at that stage. The petition was dismissed.
Issues: The primary issue was the preparation of the electoral roll and the conduct of elections based on an old voter list.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Sec. 64(2)(v) and Sec. 62(2)(v) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another to conclude that no interference can be made in the election process at the stage of preparation of the electoral roll.
Final Decision: The petition was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard.
2. By this petition the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-
(i) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of CERTIORARI or other appropriate writ, calling for the records of the petitioner's case.
(ii) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of CERTIORARI / MANDAMUS or other appropriate writ, setting aside impugned order dtd. 04/04/2023 (Annexure P/10)
(iii) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of CERTIORARI / MANDAMUS or other appropriate writ, directing the respondent no.1 to conduct fresh election process on the basis of new list which has been submitted along with report dtd. 26/8/2022.
(iv) Award the cost of the present petition.
(v) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.1 by order dtd. 4/4/2023 has declared the elections of respondent No.3 society without considering the report submitted by respondent No.2 in which irregularities committed by the earlier members of the committee have been reported. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that the earlier list of members of the society has been superseded by a new list of members which has been done on the basis of an earlier complaint and the elections ought to be conducted on the basis of the new list whereas the same are being conducted on the basis of the old list which is illegal.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has raised a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the petition. It is submitted that against the order dtd. 4/4/2023 the petitioners have alternate and efficacious remedy available to them to approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievances as per Rule 49 (c)(5) of M.P. Cooperative Society Rules, 1962. It is also submitted that the grievance as regards breach of or non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Rules during preparation of electoral role can be challenged only in an Election petition and too after declaration of the result. The petition at this stage is not maintainable as per Sec. 64 (2)(v) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 509.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Sec. 64(1) and 2(v) of the Act, 1960 are as under :-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, [any dispute touching the constitution, management or business, or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar] by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties there to are among the following:-
(a) a society, its committee, any past committee, any past or present officer, any past or present agent, any past or present servant or a nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased agent or deceased servant of the society, or the liquidator of the society;
(b) a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member of a society or of a society which is a member of the society;
(c) a person other than a member of the society who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions and any person claiming through such a person.
(d) a surety of a member, past member of deceased member or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society.
(e) any other society or the liquidator of such a society; and (f) a creditor of a society.
(2) For the purposed of sub-sec. (1), a dispute shall include- [(v) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society or of composite society;
Provided that the Registrar shall not entertain any dispute under this clause durin
Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another vs. State of Maharashtra
Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. Shriniwas Patil, Collector
Shivnarayan Amarchand Paliwal vs. Vasantrao Vithalrao Gurjar
The court ruled that the provisional voters' list must be based on the correct date as per statutory rules, emphasizing compliance with election regulations.
The court emphasized that judicial intervention is warranted in election matters when there are clear violations of statutory provisions, despite the general principle of non-interference in ongoing ....
The preparation of electoral roll under Rule 13-D(2-A) is an integral part of the election process, and the writ petition to challenge the electoral roll on the ground of non-compliance with Rule 13-....
The court established that adherence to the procedural requirements for finalizing the voter list is essential for conducting valid elections under the AP Co-operative Societies Act.
Point of law: Exclusion or inclusion of the names in the voters list does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such questions are to be decided in....
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.