RAM DAYAL SHARMA Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS wilt petition has been filed challenging the election programme and postponement thereof and the procedure and election itself to be declared as illegal in respect of Mandawar Krayar Vikraya Samiti Ltd. Madawar.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Joint Registrar, Co -operative Societies Bharatpur, Zone Bharatpur appointed Shri Sukhdev Prasad Sharma, Inspector (Executive), Cooperative Societies, Mahuwa as election officer to conduct the election of the Mandawar Kraya Vikraya Samiti Ltd. Mandawar. The election programme was published by the election officer in which the process was stalled from 26th December, 1991. Prior to this, the election of the society was scheduled to be held on 12th August, 1991. In the meantime an ordinance was issued which contemplated that the total number of Directors would be nine and from endividuals there would be two Directors. For the election of Board of Directors only the President or the Vice President can act as the representative of the Society concerned. All the Societies taking part in the election were informed that such resolution should be passed till 25th of December, 1991 in favour of the President or in absence of the President in favour of the Vice President. For this reason the elections could not be held and the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bharatpur directed the election officer on 24th December, 1991 to postpone the election. Out of the seven representatives of the Societies to be elected as Directors one was required to be from the Schedule Caste category and the rest could be from general category and two Director of agriculturist members of the Society were required; out of which one should be belonging to the Schedule Tribe categoiy. The election programme dated 27th December, 1991 was notified and the fresh date for submission of the nomination papers were notified as 7.1.1992. It is alleged that in the resolution of Pakhar Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Pakhar the Managing Committee unanimously resolved that the President of the Pakhar Samiti was out of station and, therefore, petitioner Ram Dayal was authorised to participate in the election of Mandawar Samiti on behalf of Pakhar Samiti. The copy of the resolution dated 3rd January, 1992 could not be attested till 6th January, 1992 and, therefore, the petitioner approached the election officer for attestation and accepting the copy of the resolution dated 6.1.1992 but the election officer refused to accept the same. The nomination papers were filed on 7th January, 1992 From the copy of the resolution submitted it is evident that the attestation was done on 6.1.1992 but the copy of the said resolution was submitted on 7.1.1992. The nomination of the petitioner was rejected on 8.1.1992. It is alleged that the postponment of the election programme is illegal and the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner is also illegal. It has further been stated that the second election programme on 13.1.1992 could not be held because the election officer could not turn up having fallensick.

(3.) ON the basis of the above judgment it is abundantly clear that the election conducted in the present case was properly conducted as it was required under law because the stage from which the proceedings were left was the only stage from, which the further programme was published, and proceedings, re -initiated and thus no illegality is found in that. Regarding the objection of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the nomination has wrongly been rejected, this point remains only academic in view of the fact that the right of any other person to vote is only in the absence of the President and in the present case Ram Dhan Meena, President has himself taken part in the election and has voted, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right nor on that ground the validity of election could be challenged.