J P SOMASEKHARA Vs. TAHSILDAR H D KOTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, member of a Co-operative Society, seeks in this writ petition that the election scheduled for 27-10-1991 should be struck down and a writ of prohibition issued, the first respondent placed under restraint, precluding him from holding elections on 27-10-1991 The petitioner is not one of the candidates or one of those whose candidature was turned down, disabling him from contesting the election scheduled to be held on 27-10-1991.

(2.) After having heard Mr. D,S. Ramachandra Reddy for the petitioner for a considerable length of time, what I have been able to gather from his submissions is that the petitioner is interested in the continuance of the old committee because of the situation said to have been caused with the total rout of all the candidates who had filed nominations to contest the election, with the sole exception of one person, who I find, is not made a party to this writ petition, with the result, Mr. Rcddy says one man is going to be declared elected unopposed on 27-10-1991 and thereafter that person, in virtue of having become a member of the Managing Committee of the Society, will assume office, which would result in the ousting of existing Managing Committee. But the point of Mr. Reddy is that, notwithstanding the election of that one person as member of the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee will not have been duly constituted because, under the statute and the bye-laws, the strength of the Managing Committee as fixed is nine and for a two-third's majority needed for effective functioning, it would require atleast seven people to mann the Managing Committee. It is pointed out now that the whole flock consisted of only one person, in the circumstances, a Managing Committee in the eye of law is non-est. The apprehension of the petitioner in such circumstances is, the old committee would be forced to go out of office and there being virtually no new committee, the society would be placed probably under an administration for some time. Counsel says, in this manner the democratic process would be stultified and therefore submits election scheduled for the 27lh October, 1991 should somehow be slopped.

(3.) I am hard put to accept this contention for more than one reason. One person will probably be declared duly elected for the simple reason there is no contest at all. The people who aspire to contest the elections and have been disabled from contesting the same because of lack of qualification, have not been making any grievance of that circumstance before me. As a matter of fact, none of them have chosen to join issue in this matter. But the petitioner, motivated by the sole desire of continuing the democratic heritage of the society, according to counsel, seeks to stop the declaration of announcement of poll results on 27-10-1991. Apart from the fact that the legitimate consequence of the election process in which there has been no flaw at all, cannot be interrupted by this Court, the apprehension that the old committee would become functus officio the moment that one man who is likely to be elected unopposed on 27-10-1991 assumed office, appears to be not very tenable, f say so for two reasons. In this connection, my attention was invited to Section 29-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) which stipulates when term of office of elected members commences, which reads thus:-