The right to elect or be elected is a statutory right subject to statutory limitations. Election disputes should be resolved through the statutory remedies provided by the Act, and the court should refrain from interference unless there are exceptional circumstances or violations of mandatory rules.

ORDER :

In this batch of writ petitions preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the challenge is to the process of election to the Committee of Management at initial stage and in some cases after first round of election of different Co-operative Societies on various grounds, namely, illegal rejection of nomination papers of some individuals or invalid appointment of the Returning Officer or mass rejection of nomination forms on untenable grounds or mass rejection of nomination papers exhibiting palpable illegality to confer favour on certain contestants or non-supply of nomination forms to the aspiring candidates thereby debarring them from participating in the election or further non-availability of Returning Officer at the notified places and such other ancillary factors. Thus, in essence, the prayer has been made for quashment of whole election process as the entire action of the Returning Officers luminously manifests complete arbitrariness and abuse exercise of powers.

2. At the very outset I would like to make it clear that it is not necessary to state the facts of each case in detail. However, I will refer to the nature of challenge in each case to show what compelled the petitioners to visit this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction.

3. In W. P. No. 1174/2001 the nomination papers of the petitioners have been rejected on the ground that they are disqualified as per section 50-A (1-A) of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which stipulates that no person shall be qualified to be a candidate for election as a member of the Committee, representative or a delegate if he has more than two living children one of whom is born on or after 26-1-2001. It is putforth in the petition that nomination form is issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 41 of M. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') but the said form did not provide any column to be filled up in that regard. The Additional Registrar vide Annexure-P-5 has directed that if a declaration was not in consonance with the provisions incorporated under section 50-A(1-A), the same may be looked into at the time of scrutiny and a declaration can be sought at that juncture and nomination form should not be rejected on that score but the said direction was not paid heed to by the Returning Officer.

In this case a return has been filed by the respondents No. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8, the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries, contending, inter alia, that the scrutiny had taken place before the instructions were given. It is further pleaded that as process of election has commenced the petitioners have their effective and efficacious statutory remedy under the provisions of section 64(V) of the Act.

A return has also been filed by the respondent No. 3 stating therein that the nomination forms of petitioners were rejected on the ground of disqualification as per rule 44 of the Rules. Maintainability of the writ petition has also been highlighted. Though various aspects have been urged in the counter affidavit, they need not be stated in detail.

4. In W. P. No. 1601/2001 the allegation is that the voters' list prepared by the competent authority was apparently defective. The further allegation is that the Returning Officer was required to attend the Office of the Society for scrutiny of the nomination forms on 16-3-2001 at noon but he reached office at 2 p.m. and no scrutiny was held in the presence of the candidates. It has been further putforth that the post of the President of the Society in question is reserved for Scheduled Tribes but the respondent No. 6 has been elected unopposed from the Scheduled Tribe category as no scrutiny was held at the time and place mentioned in the election programme.

5. In W. P. No. 1490/2001 the allegation is that there was change of Returning Officer who accepted the nomination papers of number of persons after treating the nomination forms to