SUNAKAR RAUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner calls in question legality of decision rendered by Member, Co-operative Tribunal, Orissa (in short, 'the Tribunal') dismissing his petition questioning, correctness of opposite party No. 5 Yudhistir Rout's election to the office of President, Radio Service Co-operative Society, Mahakalapara, Kendrapara (in short, 'the Society'). The election was held in terms of the Orissa Co-operative Societies (Election to the Committees) Rules, 1992 (in short, 'Election Rules') framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 134 read with Section 28-A of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (in short, 'the Act').

(2.) Back ground facts as projected by parties are as follows:Petitioner Sunakar Rout and opposite party No. 5 Yudhistir were contestants for the office of President of the Society. According to Election Officer (opposite party No. 3) petitioner secured 356 votes while opposite party No. 5 secured 367 votes, and latter was declared elected. Petitioner's stand is that 19 ballots liable to be rejected were counted as valid votes in favour of opposite party No. 5, and on exclusion of those 19 votes, total valid votes polled by opp. party No. 5 would be 348, which is less than the total valid votes polled by the petitioner. A dispute was raised before the Tribunal functioning under Section 67-B of the Act, in which prayer was made for recounting the ballot papers and for declaration that the petitioner was duly elected. It was pleaded that a prayer was made for recounting which was not heeded to by the Election Officer. The Election Officer (opp. party No. 3), the Society (opp. party No. 4) and opposite party No. 5 disputed the stand of the petitioner and stated that no ballot paper liable to be rejected was counted as valid vote in favour of opposite party No. 5. Stand that prayer was made for, recounting was disputed. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was absent at the time of counting, and in the absence of any, material to show that prayer was made for recounting, and absence of details of the so-called invalid votes, the Tribunal rejected the election dispute. Prayer for recounting in the absence of details of any ballot paper which according to the petitioner were invalid constituted, according to the Tribunal, a roving and fishing inquiry which was not to be permitted.

(3.) According to Mr. Mahadev Misra, learned counsel for petitioner, Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that there was no denial about the prayer for recounting. In any event the number of ballot papers being very small, direction for recounting ought to have been given. It is fairly stated that no application in writing had been filed before the Election Officer, and only an oral prayer was made. Learned counsel for opposite parties on the other hand submitted that even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that an oral prayer for recounting before the Election Officer was made, that does not meet requirements of law. Absence of any material about the so-called invalid ballot papers has rightly weighed with the Tribunal, and there is no scope for interference in this writ application.