Gulab Singh vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.B. Srivastava for the respondent no. 4 and Sri N.K. Giri and Sri Prem Prakash Yadav for the Election Commission. The learned Standing Counsel has been heard for the respondent no. 1.

Through this petition the petitioner has urged that a certiorari should be issued for quashing the publication made on 24.8.2014 Annexure 9 to the writ petition whereby the determination of the constituencies has been finalized after disposing of the objections. The grievance of the petitioner is that the objections have been disposed of by a cryptic order dated 22.8.2014 which demonstrates that no reasons have been recorded and it has been simply stated that since there was no substance therefore they are being rejected.

Sri Mishra has invited the attention of the Court to the objections raised on 16th August, 2014, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition to urge that the rotation of reservation has been deliberately altered by changing the name of the constituencies and by altering their status in the alphabetical list. He therefore submits that this deliberate act is contrary to the earlier circular of the Registrar dated 8th June, 2012 and consequently this being in violation of the said circular the action of the respondent is contrary to rules. He therefore submits that the order as well as the publication finalizing the determination of the constituency deserves to be quashed.

A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents that the election programme for the district of Muzaffarnagar of the Primary Cooperative Societies has been announced vide order dated 30.8.2014 which is as follows:-

It is urged that in view of the election process having commenced the court should not interfere with the same at this stage and they have relied on the division bench judgment of this court in the case of Gulab Dhar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others, decided on 4.3.2009. They have also relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Original Application No. 461 of 2010 to contend that when the election process has already commenced there should be no interference by the court. The aforesaid decision has in turn also followed the apex court decisions and other decisions of the various High Courts.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the preliminary objection deserves to be upheld as this court is not inclined to interfere with the election process now at this stage.

However, on the merits of the contentions which have been advanced with regard to the rotation of reservation and its applicability suffice it to say that once the Uttar Pradesh State Cooperative Societies Election Rules, 2014 have been framed and have been given effect to with immediate effect from the date of their publication i.e. 19th May, 2014, all circulars and rules stand superseded. Consequently, the reliance placed by Sri Mishra on the circular dated 8th June, 2012 does not appear to be saved under the rules or any other subsequent circular or rule or direction or instruction issued under the 2014 rules. Nothing has been placed on record before us to indicate that any fresh guidelines similar to those as contained in the circular dated 8th June, 2012 have been issued. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid argument advanced by Sri Mishra does not hold water.

Sri Mishra contends that previously there were stay orders granted when such violation had occurred. The previous stay orders or the dispute if any has been obliterated with the promulgation of the new rules and according to Section 27 and 28, the District Assistant Cooperative Election Officer has the powers to proceed for carrying out reservations in accordance with the said rules. Rule 28 is extracted herein under for ready reference:-

"Rule 28. The District Assistant Co-operative Election Officer/the Divisional Co-operative Election Officer/the competent authority shall under the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (5) of section 29 of the Act, reserve the constituencies/areas for the reserved seats and such reservation shall be done by placing the names of such constituencies/areas from where the election of the members of the Committee of Management is to be, in the Hindi alphabetical order in rotation to the extent necessary for the reservation of seats:

Provided that the areas so reserved shall be allotted in the Hindi alphabets order as follows:

(1) One of the Scheduled Castes/the Scheduled Tribes;

(2) One of the Other Backward Classes of the citizen;

(3) Two for women.

Provided further that where the letter of more than one constituency is the same, there is such cases, the reservation shall be regulated by the next letter of name of a constituency."

A perusal thereof indicates that the roster has to be fixed as per the aforesaid directions contained in the aforesaid rule and the areas reserved have to be allotted in the Hindi Alphabetical Order as indicated therein.

If new constituencies have been carved out and they have been given a name it is obvious that they have to be placed according to their alphabetical order and the argument of Sri Mishra that the same cannot be altered keeping in view the earlier circulars and has to be rejected. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.

So far as the merits of the objection are concerned the only objection raised is about the reservation not being carried out taking into account the earlier reservation of the constituencies. As explained above the reservation has now to be made under rule 28 and sticking to earlier reservation as urged by the petitioner in his objection has been rightly rejected as not having substance.

Even assuming for the sake of arguments that no detailed reasons have been given while rejecting the objections. We for the reasons recorded hereinabove, do not find any merit in the petition and the same stands accordingly dismissed.