RISHIPAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Nirankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra assisted by Sri Devrishi Kumar, learned counsel representing U.P. State Cooperative Societies Election Commission(hereinafter referred to as the Election Commission), Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned counsel representing the respondent no.4-District Cooperative Federation Limited, Bulandshahar and Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

(2.) By instituting these proceedings, the petitioner has laid challenge to an order dtd. 17/4/2018 passed by the Chief Election Commissioner(Cooperative Societies), whereby the elections of District Cooperative Federation Limited, Bulandshahar(hereinafter referred to as the society), which were notified on 16/2/2018, were postponed.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, impeaching the impugned order, is that once the election process had commenced by way of issuing the notification dtd. 16/2/2018, the Election Commission or for that matter any other authority of the State Government does not have any jurisdiction to postpone the election process. It has also been argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per the notification issued on 16/2/2018 by the Chief Election Commissioner himself, the entire time bound programme was notified wherein deadlines were given for various purposes including for the purpose of publication of provisional electoral college, filing objection to such provisional electoral college and publication of final electoral college. He has further stated that as per the said schedule, the date on which the final electoral college was to be published was 16/4/2018 whereas the impugned order has been passed a day thereafter, i.e., on 17/4/2018 and hence once the final electoral college was published in terms of the Election Notification on 16/2/2018 itself, the impugned order could not have been passed by the Chief Election Commissioner for the reason that the same amounts to interference in the election process which had already set in. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Chief Election Commissioner to have acted upon the complaint which was allegedly enquired into by the Additional District Magistrate(Finance and Revenue), Bulandshahar and was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar to the Chief Election Commissioner. Submission in this regard is that District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate(Finance and Revenue) or for that matter any other authority of the State Government did not have any locus to interfere in the election process once it had been notified and process of the election had been set in motion.