AJIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important question involved in this writ petition is as to whether once a calendar for election in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, the Act of 1965) and under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules) has been fixed, all steps except the polling which had been stayed by this Court in the writ petition, were taken, whether on dismissal or withdrawal of the writ petition in which the stay order as aforesaid was made, the entire process of election has to restart or has to take place from the stage at which it was stayed? Mr. M.I. Khan, contended that the election process started and there is an alternative remedy efficacious under Sec. 75 of the Act and, therefore, this court should not interfere. No doubt this court has taken this, view in few cases but as shall be presently shown by us and as appears from the question formulated by us, this question needs to be decided by us and we have to interpret various provisions of the Act and the Rules and, therefore, despite the fact that an alternative remedy under Sec. 75 of the Act may be available, we proceed to decide the controversy.

(2.) First the facts in order to understand the question framed by us. The election of members of Board of Director and office bearers of Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Ajmer, respondent No.4 were to take place. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies Ajmer Zone Ajmer (for short, the Joint Registrar) appointed Shri R.K.Singh as Election Office to hold the elections of members of the Board of Directors and officer bearers of the aforesaid Bank. The said Election Office issued a notice dt. May 11, 1987 giving the election programme which is as under: a) Publication of provisional voters -list inviting objections there to 12-5-1987 b) Hearing of objections 19-5-1987 c) Publication of final voters list 20-5-1987 d) Receipt of nomination papers 21-5-1987 e) Scrutiny of nomination papers 22-5-1987 f) Withdrawal of nomination papers and publication of the final list of contesting candidates 23-5-1987 g) Poll if necessary 1-6-1987 h) Election of office bearers 2-6-1987 The above election programme is contained in Annr. 1 to the writ petition. The aforesaid Election Officer published a final list of contesting candidates on May 23,1987 (Annr.2). It will be clear from the aforesaid election programme that June 1,1987 was fixed as the date of annual general meeting and poll, if necessary. It appears that before the aforesaid date i.e. June 1, 1987, a writ petition was filed and this court on May 28, 1987 had stayed the poll fixed for June 1, 1987. Later on that writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, on June 1, 1987, but prior to it after receipt of the stay order of this Court, the Election Officer had adjourned the general meeting which was called for June 1, 1987. When the final voters list was published on May 28, 1987, it contained the names of as many as 161 members so far as the election of two directors to be elected from amongst the delegates of member Co-operative Societies other than Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies and Krya Vikrya Sahkari Samitis, is concerned, out of which one seat is reserved for a delegate of weaker section. But from or after June, 1987 till July 10, 1987, as many as 51 more members further became eligible to participate in the elections. After enrolment of the above-numbered members, another calendar for election was issued on July 17, 1987 (Annr. 4). In the aforesaid programme, July 28, 1987 was fixed as the date for publication of final voters list. It is not disputed that the said voters list contained not only 161 members who were there when the election programme was issued earlier but included 51 more members. Thus, it contained total number 212 members. The petitioner has come to this Court and has challenged Annr. 4.

(3.) The challenge .is basically on the ground, that once the election process, started and has reached the stage of polling, but no polling could take place because of the stay order of this court, the stage of the date is to be restored and no fresh calendar for election can be issued. If it is allowed to be done, it will lead to malpractices as the persons may for one reason or the other adjourn the general meeting fixed for poll and thereby make eligible other members who were not eligible to vote earlier.