Jagdish Prasad vs State of Rajasthan and Others

M.B. Sharma, J.—The Returning Officer has acted in most arbitrary manner in setting aside the elections and there is no provisions in the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules 1965 (for short the Rules'') under which the elections held to the candidates of Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society could have been cancelled, and therefore, the order Annexure-3 dated 9-1-1991 of the Returning Officer respondent No. 4 is liable to be set-aside.

Before I come to the reasons for this order I will narrate the facts which are as under:

There is one Kolida Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Kolida, Dist. Sikar (for short ''the Samiti''). The elections for the Managing Committee of the said Samiti were to be held and the Registrar Co-operative Societies under Rule 32 of the Rules appointed one Ramjeewan Meena as Election Officer to conduct the elections for the aforesaid Managing Committee. For the purpose of election to the Managing Committee, the elections were to be held for the various category of the office bearers and so far as one member of the Managing Committee belonging to the Scheduled Tribe is concerned, he was elected and declared unopposed under order dated 5th January, 1991 by the returning Officer. For the remaining members, elections took place on 8th January, 1991. There is no dispute that after complying with the necessary procedure polling took place on 8th January, 1991 and the members of the Managing Committee belonging to the various categories who had secured highest number of votes were declared elected though the result does not appear to have been put on the notice board. But on 9th January, 1991, the impugned order Annexure-3 was made under which the poling held 8th January, 1991 for the Managing Committee of the Society was cancelled and it was intimated that the next date of elections would be fixed and announced.

A perusal of Rule 32 of the Rules will show that as already stated earlier, it contains elaborate procedure for the elections of the Managing Committee of the Society, Under Sub-rule (19) of Rule 32, the counting of votes shall commence immediately after the polling is completed and votes shall be counted by or under the supervision of the Election Officer and each candidate and his authorised agent shall have a right to be present at the time of counting. Sub-rule (20) of Rule 32 provides as when the ballot paper shall be rejected. Under Sub-rule (21) of Rule 32 soon after the counting of votes is over, the Election Officer shall prepare and certify a return setting forth: (a) total number of ballot papers issued; (b) the number of valid votes given to each candidate; (c) the number of ballot papers declared to be invalid or rejected. On the basis of the aforesaid return, the candidates who have secured the largest number of valid votes shall be declared elected at the general meeting and their names shall be published on the notice board of the Society under the signatures of the Election Officer. It will therefore be clear that the scheme of the aforesaid rules is that the candidate who has secured highest number of votes has to be declared elected. It is mandatory for the Election Officer to declare such of the candidate who has secured highest number of valid votes to have been elected. The result of the election should also be attested by the Election Officer and be recorded in the minute book of the Society.

A look at Section 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act 1965 (for short the ''Act'') at this stage is necessary and if disputes touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative society, among members, past members and person claiming through members, past members and deceased members etc. it has to be referred to the Registrar for decision and under Sub-section (2) of Section 75, Clause (c), any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society shall be deemed to be dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society. Therefore, only mode to challenge to the election dispute arising out of elections of any members of Society is by a mode provided u/s 75 of the Act and any other mode of challenge to it is forbidden.

The election officer has no power to cancel the polling and election and therefore, the impugned order (Annexure-3) dated 9-1-1991 is without jurisdiction.

So far as the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent that there is an alternative remedy to the petitioner, it has no force because the order dated 9-1-91 of the respondent is arbitrary, and uncalled for and made in colourable exercise of the powers which he even did not possess, is without jurisdiction.

Consequently, I allow this writ petition and quash the order (Annexure-3) dated 9-1-1991 and direct the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to call a general meeting immediately in no case, later than 15 days and the candidates who have been elected in the elections held on 8th January, 1991 shall be declared elected candidates and their names be modified on the notice board under the signatures of the Election Officer. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4. shall call a meeting of elected members of the Managing Committee of the Samiti for the election of it''s Chairman.

The respondents jointly shall pay the cost which are assessed as Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand only) to the petitioner.