NIRMAL NAHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to be issued to the respondents to allow the members referred to in Anx. 1 to participate in the election scheduled to be held on 26.11.1994 and any action prejudicial to them may also sought to be quashed. It has been prayed that the respondents may also be directed not to allow those persons whose names have been mentioned in Anx. 4 and the same may be declared illegal and void.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that he along with 475 members applied for the membership of respondent No. 2 Jodhpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Jodhpur (hereinafter referred called as Bank). It is alleged that they completed all necessary formalities for becoming the members and deposited the requisite fees and share money according to rules, so membership of the petitioner and 475 persons mentioned in Anx. 1 was unanimously accepted in the meeting held on 5.2.1994. It is also alleged that election programme was published vide Anx. 3 in daily news -paper 'Rajasthan Patrika' on 11.11.1994 whereby the date 10.11.1994 was fixed for filing the objections to the voters list, 16.11.1994 was fixed for hearing on the objection and publication of voters list. The petitioner has alleged that the objections were filed before the respondent about the non -Inclusion of names of members referred to in Anx. 1 but the same were rejected by the respondent No. 4 Election Officer. The petitioner has also alleged that out of Anx. 1 about 10 to 15 persons are already accepted as members but the rest are left, it has also been alleged that in the meeting dt. 27.10.1994, the Executive Committee illegally accepted 600 persons as members but deleted name of the petitioner and like others from participatingg in the election. The petitioner has further alleged that representations were also moved before the respondent No. 3 Dy. Registrar and Joint Registrar but they rejected the same. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) IN pursuance of the notice, the non -petitioner No. 1 State filed reply on 10.1.1995 and the non -petitioner No. 2 Bank also filed reply on 11.1.1995. Rejoinder to the reply has also been filed by the petitioner on 17.1.1995. As agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.