ASHOK SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the changed election programme issued by the newly appointed returning officer, revised election programme dated 23. 1. 1997, the second revision election programme, the rejection of the nomination form dated 25.1.1997 and also challenges the entire election process for election of Board of Directors.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner is a representative of co-operative marketing society limited, Nagod, The election of the directors of the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Satna were due and for holding the elections a returning officer was appointed by the authorities. By order of the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Joint Registrar Co- operative Societies, Rewa Shri R.S.L. Shrivastava Dy. Collector Satna was appointed as the returning officer. By notice dated 9. 1. 1997 issued by the Manager-cum-Secretary of the Bank annual general meeting was scheduled to be held on 28. 1. 1997. The Board of Directors were to be elected in the said general meeting. The election programme was published on 9.1.1997. The nomination papers were to be received between 11 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. on 17.1.1997 and 18.1.1997. The nomination papers were to be scrutinised on 20.1.1997 and 21.1.1997 between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and for 21.1.1997 from 11.00 a.m. till the subject was over. 22.1.1997 was the date fixed for withdrawal of the candidature. Final list of the candidates were to be published and symbol were to be allotted on 22.1.1997. The election was to take place on 28.1.1997. The results were to be declared on 28.1.1997 itself. Co-option against vacant seats and nomination against vacant seats were to be made on 29.1.1997 and 30.1.1997 respectively. The election of President, Vice-Presi- dent and representatives of other societies was to be held on 5.2.1997.

(3.) In accordance with the election programme various candidates filed their nomination papers on 17.1.1997 and 18.1.1997. The petitioner filed two separate sets of nomination papers for his election for the post of director. On 21.1.1997 as per the election programme the scrutiny of the nomination papers were undertaken by the returning officer Shri R.S.L. Shrivastava. At the time of scrutiny of petitioner's nomination paper various objections were raised, the objections were heard and decided by the returning officer who found that one of the nomination paper seconded by Badri Prasad Tamrakar was not in accordance with law, he therefore, rejected the same. However, the other nomination papers seconded by Bhagwandas was found to be in order and was accepted. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 8 was very much interested in the result of the election, therefore, was trying his best to contaminate and pollute the atmosphere. At the time of scrutiny of nomination paper of Shri Kamlaker Prasad Chaturvedi, the respondent No. 1 pressurised the returning officer to reject the nomination paper of Shri Kamlakar Prasad Chaturvedi. The respondent No. 8, according to the petitioner came in the office of the bank where the scrutiny was going on and attempted to over reach the office of the returning officer. People standing out side requested and then obstructed him forcibly. The respondent No. 4 while moving in the office where the scrutiny was going on, at that point of time the respondent No. 8 misbehaved with other persons, therefore, the first information report was lodged by Ravindra Sethi and others. The returning officer because of the surcharged atmosphere closed the scrutiny and, thereafter, the respondent No. 8 sent information and reports to Collector and R.S.L. Shrivastava that the illegal acts were committed by the petitioner and his associates. According to the petitioner respondent No. 8 immediately rushed to Bhopal where he exerted pressure upon the respondent No. 2 to undue the entire election programme and the steps already taken. On 23. 1. 1997 revised / amended election programme was published by the newly appointed returning officer Shri Ajay Sharma. According to the revised election programme scrutiny of the remaining nomination papers was to be conducted on 24.1.1997. According to the petitioner as form of Shri Kamlakar Prasad Chaturvedi alone was to be scrutinised, the election officer if was authorised under the law would at best could scrutinise the said nomination paper. According to the petitioner none has powers to issue amended / revised election programme. The petitioner alleges that the respondent No. 8 exerting his pressure caused a second revised election programme to be issued on 24. 1.1997. According to the second revised programme, it was ordered that the nomination papers already scrutinised on 21.1.1997 would be re-examined and reviewed and scrutinised again, on 25.1.1997. According to second revised programme withdrawal of nomination papers, publication of the final list and allotment of the symbol was to be considered on 26. 1. 1997. 26.1.1997 being the Republic Day and Sunday no official business could be conducted. The petitioner submits that the newly appointed returning officer had no authority or jurisdiction to revise the election programme nor could put under scrutiny all the documents/nomination papers which were already examined and scrutinised. The petitioner submits that all this was motivated and designed to lead to rejection of petitioner's accepted nomination paper so that the respondent No. 8 could influences the election and see that his group was successful in the election. On 25. 1. 1997 one person claiming and impersonating himself, to be Bhagwandas as alleged by the petitioner appeared before the newly appointed returning officer and filed his objections. Inspite of serious objections by the petitioner about the falsity of claim of said Bhagwandas and allegation of conspiracy, the newly appointed returning officer rejected the nominations of the petitioner. The said order supplied to the petitioner on 25. 1. 1997. The petitioner submits that the manner in which the election process was polluted and contaminated at the behest of respondent No. 8 the elections were not valid but deserve, to be set aside. The petitioner says and submits that nomination papers of Ramkaran Bunkar which was accepted on 21.1.1997 was reviewed and rejected on 25.1.1997. The petitioner submits that on 28.1.1997 the election of board of directors were held in absolute illegal and arbitrary manner and II Directors were declared to have been elected to their office by the returning officer. Nine were declared elected while the other two were co-opted. The petitioner submits that the elections held under the supervision and control of substituted returning officer are contrary to the provisions of law and Rule 41 (2) (b) of the Co-operative Societies Rules. The petitioner submits that the process of election was so mercilessly polluted that the outcome cannot be held to be in accordance with law. He prays that the elections be set aside.