ABDULLA KHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are Plaintiffs in (C.T.) E.D.No. 13 of 2007 pending before the Orissa State Co -operative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and Annexure -4 is a copy of that election petition. Plaintiffs filed that election dispute impleading Opposite Parties 3 and 4 of this writ petition as Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the election petition. D.R.C.S., Balasore and A.R.C.S., Bhadrak have been added as Defendant Nos. 3 and 4. In addition to that Defendant Nos. 5 to 18 in that case are the members who are allegedly illegally elected to the Board of Directors of Padhanpada Seva Samavaya Samiti Ltd., at Nilakarai in the district of Bhadrak. None of the aforesaid Defendant Nos. 3 to 18 have been impleaded as opposite parties in this writ petition. Amongst them, Defendant Nos. 6, 8 and 10 to 18 have filed applications as intervenors and they have been permitted to participate in the proceeding.

(2.) THERE is no dispute between the parties that presently no Presiding Officer is posted as Member of the Co -operative Tribunal and a transfer or retirement vacancy exists there.

(3.) THE intervenors not only oppose to the aforesaid interim order and pray for vacating it but also they argue to dispose of the writ petition leaving the parties to take their chance in the election dispute case. In the above context, various contentions raised on the conduct of the individual members, their credibility and capability to participate in the election are not gone into in as much as the election dispute is pending before the Tribunal which is the forum to adjudicate such dispute on admitting and appreciating proper evidence on record. Then the question arises whether the petitioners are entitled to the interim protection as prayed for. The further question that crops up is whether the Co -operative Tribunal could have granted such interim protection as prayed for by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the intervenors argues that in view of the mandate of Section 28 -B of the Orissa Co -operative Societies Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) the Tribunal has no such power or jurisdiction to grant stay to the election process. He further argues that the provision of Section 67 -B of the Act though authorizes and empowers the Tribunal to adjudicate the election dispute Clause (ii) of Sub -section (1) does not supersedes the mandatory provisions of Section 28 -B of the Act. In that regard, Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the intervenors relies in the case of Thabir Charan Mishra versus Member, State Co -operative Tribunal, Orissa and others, 2003 (II) OLR 436, Rabindra Kumar Das and another versus State of Orissa and others, 1999 (I) OLR 497 and the case of Kailash Chandra Dandpat and others etc. versus Birabhadraswar Weavers Co -operative Society Ltd. and others, AIR 1994 Ori. 1.