Jaiveer Singh Rathi vs State of U.P. and Others

Satya Poot Mehrotra and Zaki Ullah Khan, JJ.—On oral prayer made by Rohit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permuted to implead District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bijnor as party-Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition as well as in the stay application. Necessary impleadment will be done by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the determination of constituencies published on 13.1.2013 under Rule 440(7) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 for the election of the Committee of Management of District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bijnor.

It appears that by the order dated 13.1.2013 issued by the respondent No. 3 under Rule 440(7) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, the constituencies for the election of the Committee of Management of District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bijnor have been finalized. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.

We have heard Sri Rohit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Sujit Kumar, learned counsel for the newly-added respondent No. 4.

Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has brought to the notice of the Court that on 14th January, 2013, the election programme in respect of Cooperative Society in question (i.e., District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bijnor) has already been notified, and the elections are scheduled to take place on 29th January, 2013 and 30th January, 2013. Learned standing counsel has produced photostat copy of the notice issued by the Election Officer in this regard.

It is thus evident that the election process has already commenced for the election of the Cooperative Society in question (i.e., District Co operative Bank Ltd., Bijnor).

As the election process has already commenced, we are of the view that it will not be appropriate for this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, so as to hinder the ongoing election process. It will be open to the petitioner to pursue such remedy as may be available to him under law before appropriate Forum after the elections are over for redressal of his alleged grievances, as raised in the present writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed subject to the observations made above.