SANT SADGURU JANARDAN SWAMI MOINGIRI MAHARAJ SAHAKARI DUGDHA UTPADAK SANSTHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a specified Society in the district of Ahmednagar known as Godavari Khore Dudh Utpadak Sangh (hereinafter referred to as ' the Society). The Society is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as ' the Act). The Society is a central society and number of other primary co-operative societies are its members and is governed by the Act and rules framed thereunder. The Management of the Society is run by the managing committee, the members of which are elected by the delegates of the members societies. The Chairman is elected from amongst the members of the committee of Management. The term of the elected Managing Committee of the Society was due to expire in the year 1999. The Collector, therefore, took steps for preparation of the electoral roll of the Society. For that purpose, the Collector announced the programme for finalisation of the electoral roll of the Society. On 4th of June, 1999, the provisional electoral roll was published. The objection against the provisional voter list were invited till 14th of June, 1999, which were required to be decided by 23 rd of June, 1999 and the electoral roll was to be finalised and published on 2nd of July, 1999. The State Government on 8-6-1999 passed an order under Section 73 (1) (B) of the Act staying the elections in the cooperative societies in the State on account of rainy season. It was indicated in the said order that where nomination papers have not yet been filed the elections shall stand postponed till 30th September, 1999. In pursuance thereof, wireless message was sent to all the co-operative societies about the decision taken by the State Government. It appears that certain objections against the publication of the provisional electoral roll of the Society was filed which allegedly was considered by the authority on 23rd June, 1999. On 29 th June, 1999, the Collector, Ahmednagar informed that as per the Government order dated 8-6-1999, the election scheduled to be held stand postponed till 30 th September , 1999. It appears in between time some representation were made to the State Government to exempt the Society from the order dated 8 th June, 1999. In pursuance of the said representations the Government of Maharashtra issued a Notification dated 30 th June, 1999 making out a special case in favour of the present Society and deleted its name from the Notification dated 8 th June, 1999, with the result that the election for the Society which was postponed earlier was now required to take place. In view of the said Notification issued by the State Government, the authority on 2-7-1999 published final electoral roll of the members of the Society. The Collector on 21st October, 1999 drew election schedule for holding election of the Society. It is at this stage, the petitioners filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court. It was prayed therein that the order dated 21st October, 1999 be set aside. The said writ petition was subsequently dismissed by the High Court. The petitioners thereafter preferred this appeal by means of Special Leave Petition.

(2.) While the appeal was pending the election for constituting the Managing committee was held but the declaration of the result was stayed by the order of this Court dated 26-11-1999.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the electoral roll being substratum of the election for constituting the Managing committee and the same having not prepared and finalised in accordance with the mandatory rules, no election can be held on such electoral roll and the same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised on objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that since the election process has already commenced and inasmuch as election has already taken place, the appellants have an alternative remedy to file an election petition under Section 144-T of the Act before the tribunal. It was further urged that the High Court has rightly declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and, therefore, this Court is not required to go into the merits of the appeal. However, this was refuted by the learned counsel for the appellants. Their case is that the preparation of the voters' list not being part of the election process, the Election Tribunal is not competent to go into the validity or otherwise of an electoral roll in an election petition. Therefore, the only remedy available to the appellants is to file writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.