AJAY JAIN Vs. CHIEF ELECTION AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief(s) :-

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the election of the Governing Body of Basoda Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit were declared by election program dated 23- 1-2020. Accordingly, Schedule program for the election of the Bank was declared by order dated 6-2-2020. The petitioner also submitted his nomination paper on 14-2-2020. It is the case of the petitioner, that without assigning any reason, the respondent no.6/returning officer, rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner and orally informed that the signature of the seconder has mismatched, therefore, his nomination paper has been rejected. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed an application before the returning officer for providing reasons for rejection of his nomination paper, but he was informed, that the reasons would be supplied only on the direction of the Court. It is pleaded in the writ petition that as per the provisions of Rule 41 of Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962, the returning officer shall permit any misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical technical or printing error to be corrected. It is submitted that no such opportunity was given. It was pleaded that the signatures of his seconder namely Shri Suresh Kumar Tanwani were his original signatures, because he had also contested the elections on the previous occasions. It is further pleaded that the petitioner fulfills all the requisite qualifications for contesting the election for the post of Directors, and on the previous occasion also, he was elected unopposed. It is further pleaded that the valuable right of the petitioner has been infringed by illegal rejection of his nomination paper.

(3.) The respondent no. 6 and 7 have filed their return. The respondent no. 6 has annexed the copies of the nomination paper along with the orders passed by him for rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner. The respondents no. 6 and 7 have further pleaded that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing an election petition under Section 64 of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act.