PRAFULLA KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LOOKING to the short point involved in the case, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was Ex-Chairman and Director of respondent No. 3-Society. The elections of the Society were not held for a considerable long period since 1995, so the petitioner filed a petition before this Court, which was registered as W. P. No. 1554/98 and was heard and decided vide order dated 3-7-98 (Annexure P-4 ). The following order was passed in W. P. No. 1554/98 :-In this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 1-6-95 and 2-6-95, as contained in Annexures P-4 and P-5, passed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to complete the election process for election of Director of the Board and President of the petitioner-Society. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the election of the petitioner Society was to be held on 3-6-95 and 8-6-95, but it was stayed by the respondent No. 3 in the midst of election process. Shri R. K. Gupta, Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has contended that the petitioner Society, along with certain other societies, was to under liquidation as per policy decision of the State Government. Therefore, elections of the petitioner Society was stayed for facilitating formation of a new Society. He further contended that the State Government has dropped the idea of liquidation of the society, and therefore, the respondent No. 2 had issued an order for holding fresh elections to the petitioner Society. In response to this submission of Shri Gupta, Shri Rajendra Tiwari has contended that election of the petitioner society should proceed from the stage where it was left. He also placed reliance on Rajendra Shukla v. A. B. Qureshi (AIR 1986 M. P. 29) and Surendra Sohane v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vish-wavidyalaya (1991 JLJ 307 ). The decisions relied upon by Shri Tiwari have no relevance to the facts of the present case. In any case, elections can not be held from the stage where it was left, as several new members might have entered office and many old members might have retired in the intervening period. To order elections to take place from the stage where it was left, would amount to depriving new members from exercising their franchise. Therefore, election can not be permitted to take place from the stage where it was stayed. The only course open is to order new election. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

(3.) AFTER the aforesaid order, petitioner again filed another petition before this Court, which was registered as W. P. No. 3098/2002. This petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 30th June, 2003. This Court held :--The grievance of the petitioner is that election of respondent No. 5, Rural Electric Cooperative Society, Pandhana, is not being held. Let the Registrar, Co-operative Society, examine the grievance of the petitioner and issue appropriate direction in the matter as may be considered necessary. This Court has not opined on merits of the claim of the petitioner. Let decision be taken by the Registrar by reasoned and speaking order within 6 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.