AJAY DUBEY Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought a writ of quo warranto against the respondent No. 3, who has been appointed as M.P. State Co-operative Election Authority as provided under Section 57-C of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The appointment of respondent No. 3 has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that his name was not recommended by the General Administration Department, on his application, his case was screened by the Screening Committee and thereafter he was appointed. It was submitted that the aforesaid process of recommending the name by the GAD could not have been by-passed by the respondent. It is also submitted that no vigilance report of respondent No. 3 was called before his appointment. We have gone through the record and find that as per the proceedings which are at Page 41 of the paper book, the name of the respondent No. 3 was duly recommended by a Screening Committee. A panel of three officers had recommended him for appointment on the post of aforesaid Authority. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 was appointed. Section 57-C of the Act read thus:--

(2.) The aforesaid provision provides that the State Govt., shall appoint a person as the M.P. State Co-operative Election Authority on the recommendation of a Screening Committee consisting of Chief Secretary who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee, Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department as a Member and Principal Secretary, Co-operation Department as a Member Secretary. There is no provision for recommendation of name by the GAD, in absence of which it cannot be said that any procedure prescribed under the law was not followed.

(3.) So far as vigilance report is concerned, though there is no provision in this regard in Section 57-C to seek vigilance report, but, from perusal of the minutes of the Screening Committee, which are at Page 43, it appears that the vigilance report was called in respect of the respondent No. 3. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as M.P. State Co-operative Election Authority. This petition is found without merit and is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.