JHANDAWALI GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI Vs. ELECTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the voters list Ex. 17 and it has been prayed that the election officer may be directed not to conduct the election on the basis of the aforesaid voters list.

(2.) THE petitioner is a a cooperative society registered under the Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) The election for the committee of the society was scheduled to be held on 22 -9 -1986. For properly conducting the election, the election officer prepared a voters list as required under Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules). The election officer invited objections to the voters list on 8 -9 -1986 and a notice was displayed on 8 -9 -1986. The petitioner society submitted its register of membership to respondent No. 1. The last member was enrolled in this register on 21 -7 -1986. After that on 17 -9 -1986 68 persons applied for the membership of the petitioner society and deposited necessary fee for the purpose. The petitioner society got the receipts of 67 persons It is alleged that dt. 8 -9 -1986 all these members were present and when the final voters list was prepared their names were not shown in the list. They protested and submitted objections to respondent No. 1. It is alleged that the respondent demanded some money for the inclusion but the same was not paid. Therefore, the names were not included. Thereafter an extra ordinary meeting was called on 9 -9 -1986 and it was resolved that election should not be held on the basis of this illegal voters list. The petitioner society moved an application for supply of an authenticated copy of the list. But the election officer informed the petitioner society that it will be supplied on 10 -9 -1986. But that list was not supplied till 17 -9 -1986. In these circumstances, the petitioner society has approached this Court that the 68 persons who are members of the petitioner society have been deprived of their right to vote as their names were not included in the voters list.

(3.) I have heard both the learned Counsel I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that these 68 persons have been wrongly deprived their right of franchise. I gone through the reply and the facts disclosed in the return and the original register produced before me clearly shows that the election officer has rightly exercised his discretion and has found that 68 persons have not been rightly included in the voters list.