Smt. Mahendra Kaur vs State of U.P. and Others

Satya Poot Mehrotra and Zaki Ullah Khan, JJ.—We have heard Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying that the election of the respondent No. 6 held on 29.10.2012 as Member of the Cooperative Society in question be cancelled.

Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Rule 444C of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 for challenging the election of the respondent No. 6 as Member of the Co-operative Society in question, and in the circumstances, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election of the respondent No. 6 as Member of the Co-operative Society in question was illegal, and, therefore, this Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and keeping in view the nature of the controversy involved in the present writ petition, we are inclined to accept the preliminary objection raised by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Rule 444C of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 lays down as under:

444C. (1) The election in a Co-operative Society shall not be called in question either by arbitration or otherwise except on the ground that--

(a) the election has not been a fair election by reasons that corrupt practice, bribery or undue influence has extensively prevailed at the election, or

(b) the result of the election has been materially affected--

(i) by improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination, or

(ii) by Improper reception, refusal or rejection of voters, or

(iii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or the bye-laws of the society.

Explanation.--For the purpose of this rule corruption, bribery or undue influence shall have the meaning assigned to each u/s 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

(2) A dispute relating to election shall be preferred by the aggrieved party within forty-five days of the declaration of the result.

From a perusal of the above-quoted Rule, it is evident that the election of a Co-operative Society may be questioned on the grounds mentioned in the said Rule. One of the grounds mentioned in sub-clause (iii) of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of the above Rule is that the result of the election has been materially affected by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, the Rules framed under the said Act or the Bye-laws of the society.

It is, thus, evident that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under Rule 444C of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.

In view of the availability of alternative remedy available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner.