Nanu Ram vs The State of Raj. and Others

J.R. Chopra, J.—This Writ petition is directed against the election of Moondara Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Moondara, Tahsil Sujangarh, District Churu.

The contention of the petitioner is that the election Officer published the final list vide Annexure-2 containing certain names and that final list was changed on the last date of nomination and this could not have been done because it is against Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 and secondly, a person is eligible to cast his vote under Rule 32(4) of the aforesaid Rules only when his name is included in that list and therefore, the facts of this case according to Mr. Joshi, are not similar to these in Ramrakh v. State of Raj. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 110/1991 decided by this Court on 5-3-1991).

According to Mr. Joshi, this case is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Chainaram v. State of Raj. and Ors. 1988 (I) RLR 343 wherein it has been held that Clause (c) to Sub-section (2) of Section 75 of the Act, which authorises the Registrar to decide any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the Society. Whether the Voters list under Rule 34(4) of the Rules was correctly prepared or not, is a dispute arising in connection with the election of the members of the Committee. If any body feels aggrieved by the incorrect preparation of the voters list, he can raised dispute challenging the election u/s 75(2) of the Act. The Registrar in such a case can decide whether the voters list was not correctly prepared? But he can decide so only after the election has taken place and not prior to it. Much stress has been laid on this observation that the Registrar has to decide the dispute after the elections are held and not prior to it.

Reliance has also been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ajit Kumar v. State of Rajasthan 1989 (2) RLR 616, wherein it has been held that the election process was interrupted on account of stay order of High Court in another writ petition. A question dropped up for consideration that from what stage the election process should start again on dismissal or withdrawal of writ petition in which the stay order was made. It was held that the question requires interpretation of various provisions of Act and Rules. The writ petition was held to be maintainable despite the alternative remedy available u/s 75 of the Act. This authority has no application to the facts of the present case. In this case, in a similar writ petition, a learned single Judge of this Court in Ramrakh''s case'' (supra) has held that Section 75(2(c) specifically provides that any dispute arising in connection with the election of any Officer of the Society can be resolved by arbitration u/s 75. Sub-section (3) of Section 77 further provides that the Registrar or any other person to whom a dispute is referred, for decision, pending decision of the dispute can make such interlocutory orders as he may deem necessary in the interest of justice. Both these provisions apparently make it clear that even an election dispute can be resolved by arbitration u/s 75 and u/s 77(3) of the Act by the Registrar or any person authorised in this behalf and has also power to pass such interlocutory orders as he may deem necessary in the interest of justice. The learned single Judge has further held that it is true that there is no prohibition is the court is satisfied that the action of the respondent is without jurisdiction, the court can interfere in the matter. The existence of alternative remedy is no bar for the court to interfere in the matter that ordinarily this Court will not interfere if the remedy provided under the Act can grant an effective relief. In the present case, as mentioned above, an effective remedy has been provided under the Act and so much so under Sub-section (3) of Section 77, a power has been conferred on the Registrar or any person authorised in this behalf under the Act to pass an interlocutory order also. Therefore, when the effective/effacious alternative remedy is available than this Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. It was further observed as follows:

that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy under Sections 75 and 77 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and, therefore, they should first a avail that remedy before approaching this Court. The petitioners have also raised other questions like inclusion or exclusion of names from voters list by the election officer etc. Since I have taken the view that the petitioners have alternative remedy therefore, I need not dwell on this question.

It may be stated here that in a catena of cases, their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that election process once started should not ordinarily be interfered with. So that as it may, I may state that the petitioner himself has stated in para 1 of the writ petition that the facts of this writ petition are similar to the facts of Ramrakh''s case (supra) and it was because of this that a stay order has been passed similar to that in Ramrakh''s case (supra). Now, it does not lie in the mouth of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to state that this writ petition is not covered by Ramrakh''s case (supra), when he himself has mentioned in para 1 of the writ petition that this writ petition is squarely covered by Ramrakh''s case and it was because of this that a similar stay order was sought and granted in this case. Under these circumstances, Chainaram''s case (supra) and Ajit Kumar''s case (supra) have little application to the facts of the present case.

In this view of the matter, this case is decided in term of the decision in Ramrakh''s case (supra).

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner is free to avail alternative remedy available to him.