MADHUKAR GANPATRAO SOMVANSHI Vs. SHESHRAO NARAYANRAO BIRADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this petition, briefly stated are as follows : Nilanga Taluqa Co-operative Supervising Union, Nilanga, District Osmanabad, Opponent No. 6, is a Federal Co-operative Society, (hereinafter referred to as the "federal Society"), deemed to have been registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 124 Co-operative Societies are affiliated as members to the said Federal Society. The Managing Committee of the Federal Society consists of 8 members (including the Chairman), one of whom is nominated by the Government, one is nominated by Osmanabad District Central Co-operative Bank and the other six are elected. The election to the Managing Committee of the Federal Society was scheduled to be held on 16th September 1967, nominations were to be submitted on or before 2-9-1967, scrutiny the list of the candidates contesting the election was published on 8-9-1967. On 14-9-1967 i. e. two days prior to the date of the election, respondent No. 1 Sheshrao Narayanrao Biradar submitted an application to the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Department, Maharashtra State, contending that the procedure preceding the election was not properly followed. One of the grievances raised at the hearing was that although some of the member societies were disqualified, they were allowed to contest the election. This application was heard by the Registrar's nominee and by his order dated 15th April 1968 he granted respondent No. 1's application and rejected the nomination papers of the present petitioner Madhukar Ganpatrao Somvanshi and respondents Nos. 2 to 5. Against this decision, the present petitioner preferred appeal to Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, Bombay. The Tribunal by its decision dated 11th September 1968 held that the dispute in question was not one contemplated by Section 91 of the Act, hence no appeal lay to the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded no findings on merits. In view of the finding that no appeal lay, the appeal was dismissed. The present petition is preferred against this decision of the Tribunal.

(2.) MR. Sawant, who appears for the petitioner, relies on the Supreme Court decision in Dr. Narayan Bhaskar Khare v. Election Commission of India, 13 Ele LR 112 = (AIR 1957 SC 694 ). Relying on this decision, it is urged that wrong rejection or acceptance of nomination papers cannot form the subject-matter of a dispute contemplated by Section 91 of the Act, if such a dispute is raised before the declaration of result of the election. The Supreme Court in that case observed that although Art. 71 (1) of the Constitution undoubtedly confers jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to inquire into and decide all doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of the President or Vice-President, the question for consideration before the Court was whether there was anything in the Constitution indicating the time or stage at which and the manner in which such doubts and disputes are to be inquired into and decided. The Supreme Court referred to Articles 327, 329 (b) and Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and held :

(3.) IT is obvious that the above Supreme Court decision clearly lays down that wrong acceptance or rejection of a nomination paper can be made a ground of attack only after the result of the election is declared, and not at any stage prior to that.