Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others on 3 December, 2012
Bench: Satya Poot Mehrotra, Het Singh Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 62398 of 2012
Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Ajai Maurya
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,M.N. Mishra
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Hon'ble Het Singh Yadav,J.
We have heard Shri Ajai Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri M.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 , and perused the record.
The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the election of the respondent no.6 as Director/ Member of the Cooperative Society in question which was held on 29.10.2012.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of taking proceedings under Rule 444C of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 for questioning the election of the respondent no.6 on the grounds mentioned in the said Rule, and in view of the availability of alternative remedy, no interference is called for in the present Writ Petition.
Shri Ajai Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and the Writ Petition may be entertained despite the existence of such alternative remedy.
Having considered the preliminary objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, we are inclined to accept the same.
Rule 444 C of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 lays down as under:
"444-C. (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 under Section 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."
One of the grounds for questioning the election in a cooperative society is that the result of the election has been materially affected by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, the Rules framed thereunder or the bye-laws of the society.
The petitioner, thus, has an alternative remedy of taking proceedings under the aforesaid Rule 444C for questioning the election of the respondent no.6.
In view of the availability of alternative remedy 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 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, and the same is dismissed on the said ground.
Order Date :- 3.12.2012
safi
