AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gopinath P., J
The petitioner is a milk producer and is a member of the 6th respondent Milk Producers Co-operative Society. He has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that persons ineligible to be the members of the Society are included in the electoral roll and also permitted to contest the election. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the bye-laws regarding membership, only a milk producer staying within the area of operation of the Society and having completed 18 years of age and entitled to enter into contract alone is entitled to become members of the Society.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though respondents 7 and 8 are even ineligible to be the members of the Society, they are being permitted to contest the election to the managing committee of the 6th respondent Society. It is submitted that though the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 before the Electoral Officer, no action has been taken to remove the ineligible persons from the voters list and also from the array of persons who are contesting the election.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Co-operative Election Commission would submit that these are disputes which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. It is submitted that, originally the list of voters including 19 names and on the complaint petitioner, the name of one person was removed from the voters list and only 18 members remain. It is submitted that out of nine (9) members, who constitute the managing committee, the nominations have been received only for eight (8) as is evident from Ext.P7. It is submitted that going by the principles laid down in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Anr v.State of Maharashtra and Ors, AIR 2001 SC 3982, the petitioner cannot have his grievance adjudicated in a writ petition considering the fact that the voters list has already been fialised, nominations have been accepted and the elections are scheduled to be held tomorrow (13.6.2023).
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Co-operative Election Commission, I am of the view that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission. In Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Anr v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, AIR 2001 SC 3982 the Supreme Court held as follows:
“In view of our finding that preparation of the electoral roll is being an intermediate stage in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified society and the election process having been set in motion, it is well settled that the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. It is not disputed that the election in question has already been held and the result thereof has been stayed by an order of this Court, and once the result of the election is declared, it would be open to the appellant to challenge the election of returned candidate, if aggrieved, by means of an election petition before the election tribunal.”
Taking into consideration the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, I am of the view that this writ petition is clearly not maintainable and if the petitioner has any grievance regarding the inclusion of respondents 7 and 8 in the voters list and in their nomination to be the members of the managing committee of the 6th respondent Society, it is for the petitioner to raise such disputes in a duly constituted election petition. Reserving that liberty of the petitioner, this writ petition will stand dismissed. All contentions raised by the petitioner are left open for adjudication in the election petition.