I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI

27^TH FEBRUARY, 2025 SPECI AL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2025 Uttarakhand Cooperative Election Tribunal. …Appellant Versus Mange Ram Sirohi & another …Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondent no. 1: Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel.

Counsel for respondent no. 2: Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General with Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

JUDGMENT :

(per Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

Uttarakhand Cooperative Election Tribunal has challenged the interim order dated 21.02.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition(M/S) No. 3273 of 2024. Relevant extract of the said order is reproduced below:-

“11. When the changed Rules were notified on 12.12.2024, the petitioner has filed an amendment application seeking mandamus declaring the proviso to Rule 12(b) of 2018 Rules as illegal, irregular and unconstitutional amounting to interference in the election process, once the same has already been commenced.

12. A bare perusal of above Rule 12(b) of 2018 Rules makes it abundantly clear that initially the voter rights were limited to such members by whom transactions have been done with the society 45 days before the date of election, at least in any year during the previous three cooperative years. But, by adding proviso to it, it has been tried to be diluted. The voter list is expanded by adding the proviso and this expansion of voters list was not done before commencement of the election, but after notification of the election on 12.09.2024, when the process was already underway.

13. It is true that the election process should not be interfered with in midway in normal circumstances, but here, the respondents have interfered with the election process midway and the interference is not on any small issue, but by such amendment the voters have been expanded.

14. Earlier also apprehension was raised by the petitioner in the first petition. At that stage, it was observed that the Cooperative Election Guidelines, 2024 issued by the respondents shall be governed by its explanation and Rule 12(b) of 2018 Rules shall have an overriding effect.

15. The respondents did not stop. Strangely, the Chairman of the Cooperative Election Authority deferred the election by forwarding a proposal for amendment in Rule 12(b) of 2018 Rules. The operation of the impugned communication dated 04.11.2024 was stayed by the Court on 13.12.2024. On that date, it was not told by the State that any amendment has already been carried out.

16. The apprehension which the petitioner had raised in the first petition has turned out to be true. After commencement of the election process, the respondents had interfered in it and tried to widen the horizon of voters by amending Rule 12(b) of 2018 Rules. Therefore, under such exceptional circumstances, this Court has no other option, but to pass an interim order. This is a situation which warrants interference of the Court. 17. The respondents may conduct election in accordance with all the existing Rules except the amendment that has been incorporated in Rule 12(b) of 2018 Rules as notified in the official Gazette on 12.12.2024.”

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that impugned order is unsustainable. He relies upon proviso to Rule 441 of Co-operative Societies Rules, 2004 and contends that once election process is notified, nominations are finalized and symbols are allotted, the process of election cannot be suspended or postponed. Rule 441 along with proviso with Rules is extracted below:-

“441. Where the State Government is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it difficult to hold the election on the date fixed by the Registrar, it may direct the Registrar to postpone the election and thereupon the Registrar shall postp