SHEO NARAIN BHARTI Vs. REGISTRAR, MILK CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of the order dated 24th Aug., 1990 of the Commissioner of Milk, as communicated to the Returning Officer by means of a telegram, the Returning Officer on 25th Aug., 1990 passed an order in accordance with the order of the Commissioner of Milk. The election had been postponed until further orders. The order of the Commissioner of Milk as well as the order of the Returning Officer are being impugned in the present petition.

(2.) Learned Standing Counsel represents the respondents and he has been heard in opposition to this petition. In view of the order we are proposing to pass in this case, we do not consider it necessary to call for a counter-affidavit. We are disposing of this petition finally.

(3.) The impugned order dated 24th Aug., 1990 does not record any reason. It also purports to stay the election sine die. It is agreed between the learned Counsel for the parties that the source of the power of;the Commissioner of Milk is the second proviso to Rule 440 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The provision as contained in the said proviso, emphasises on two aspects. First, the authority passing the order must record reasons in support of its order and secondly, the authority can merely make an extension in the time schedule. It is to be noted that the time schedule of the election is to be framed in accordance with the relevant rules prior to the commencement of the process of the election. Here, a mere reading of the order will indicate that no reason, whatsoever, has been recorded. As already indicated, the Commissioner of Milk has not purported to affect a change in the time schedule, instead he purported to postpone the election until further orders.