Sri Shanmugam vs Returning Officer, Lokkanahalli Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd. and Others

B.S. Patil, J.—Order dated 01.02.2014 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Kollegal, in E.P. No. 1/2014 thereby restraining the Returning Officer and the District Election Officer from conducting elections to the Lokkanahalli Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited, Lokkanahalli Village, Chamarajnagar District, is called in question in this writ petition.

The order under challenge is styled as ''ex-parte temporary injunction granted until further orders'', though petitioner who was arrayed as respondent No. 3 before the Court below had appeared and filed his objections. The Court has proceeded on the basis that the official respondents, namely, the Returning Officer and the District Election Officer had to be heard in the matter and as certain prima facie irregularities were made out by the petitioners therein -- (respondents 3 and 4 herein), an ex-parte temporary injunction needed to be granted.

Sri Jayakumar S. Patial, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner principally contended that the alleged irregularities pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Court below are not at all pleaded in the election petition. He also submits that the order passed by the Court below interrupting the election process would defeat the provisions contained u/s 39-A of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ''the Act'') and that the Court below has failed to take note of the fact that provisional voters list had been published as back as on 10.12.2013 inviting objections from the interested persons and none of the members of the Society had filed objections to the provisional voters list. It is urged that after scrutinizing the eligibility of the members, the final list of voters had been prepared and published and the same could not have been made a subject matter of election dispute, that too before the conduct of the election and declaration of the results. He has referred to various provisions of the Act in support of his contention.

It is unnecessary to refer to these contentions as this Court is not deciding the merits of the matter. The anxiety of the petitioner that if elections are delayed, it may result in defeating the provisions contained u/s 39-A of the Act deserves to be appreciated. The Trial Court has proceeded to grant an ex-parte order of temporary injunction without considering the various contentions raised by the present petitioner and in the absence of the official respondents, namely, the Returning Officer and the District Election Officer being represented. Therefore, in these circumstances, in my view, in order to ensure that the matter before the Trial Court is not unduly protracted, a direction needs to be issued to the Court below to take up the matter, hear and dispose of the application filed for interim order.

Petitioner, the official respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioners before the Court below, namely, respondent 3 and 4 herein who are represented before this Court by the learned counsel including the learned Additional Government are directed to appear before the Court below on 18.02.2014, whereupon, the Court below shall hear the matter and dispose of the application filed for interim order within a period of fifteen days thereafter. This time frame has been fixed keeping in mind the mandate of law that elections have to be held expeditiously and within a time frame for the co-operative societies in question and before the expiry of the term of the existing Board of Directors. The Court below shall adhere to the frame fixed above.