Allahabad High Court
Vishwanath Verma And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 10 February, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1111 of 2023
Petitioner :- Vishwanath Verma And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Cooperative Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nirankar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Lakshyadeep Srivastava, who has filed his vakalatnama (which is taken on record) on behalf of respondent no. 3.
Sri Lakshyadeep Srivastava says that the Interim Committee has already been constituted by the order dated 28.01.2023. It is further submitted that the notification of the election has already been issued on 02.02.2023.
Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel has referred to the prayer Clause in the writ petition and stated that this writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents to conduct the election as expeditiously as possible and not to appoint any Administrator/Interim Management Committee and allow the present elected Committee of Management of Uttari Kheeri Anusuchit Janjati Sahkari Federation Limited, Khiri to continue as Interim Committee of management, after expiry of its term on 31.01.2023.
He further says that similar prayer was made in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47233 of 2012 (Committee of Management of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. and Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) where the Division Bench of this Court noticing the amended Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 had referred the matter to a Larger Bench of this Court for decision whether the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can go against the legislative mandate and issue any such directions. The Larger Bench has decided the question in the negative in its decision dated 14.03.2014.
Learned counsel for the State-respondents has placed reliance upon paragraphs 8 & 9 of the judgment of the Larger Bench, which have been quoted hereinbelow:-
"8. None of the five decisions referred to earlier has taken note of the plain meaning and consequence of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 29. The decisions, to the extent to which a direction for the holding of elections expeditiously and within a time frame has been issued, cannot be faulted. However, a direction to the effect that the erstwhile Committee of Management would continue until elections are held, would be plainly contrary to Section 29 (5) prior to the amendment by U.P. Act 13 of 2013. As we have noted earlier, the position as it stood, has been substantially altered by the enactment of Amending Act 13 of 2013. In sub-section (2) as substituted, the term of the Committee of Management has been stipulated as five years. Under sub-section (3), election to reconstitute the Committee of Management are under the superintendence, control and direction of the Uttar Pradesh State Co-operative Societies Election Commission constituted by the State Government. Significantly, erstwhile sub-section (5) has been substituted and by the substituted provision, the legislature has deleted the provisions of both clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (5). Consequently, the legislative mandate in clause (a) of sub-section (5), as it stood earlier, which was coupled with a non obstante clause, has ceased to exist as well as the provision in clause (b) for the appointment of an Administrator. Under Section 35(1), as amended, the Registrar has been empowered to supersede the Committee of Management where, in his opinion, the Committee has, inter alia, failed to conduct the election in accordance with the provisions of the Act before the expiry of its term. This is an enabling provision. The action of the Registrar would be amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can, in an appropriate case, if the facts and circumstances so justify, issue such directions as it considers just and proper. There cannot be a vacuum in management or administration. Hence, while issuing directions for the holding of fresh elections, it would be open to the High Court, in an appropriate case, to issue such directions as it considers fit and proper having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. We are not inclined, in this reference, to make an enumeration of the circumstances which would be borne in mind by the Court since that is a matter for the exercise of judicial discretion in each case on objective and rationale considerations.
9. For these reasons, we answer the reference by holding that under the provisions of Section 29 (5) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, as they stood immediately prior to the amendment brought about by U.P. Act 13 of 2013, the High Court had no power in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the continuance of a Committee of Management of a co-operative society even though the term of such a society had come to an end. Such a direction would be contrary to the legislative mandate of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 29, as they then stood. However, as we have noted, the position has been altered by Amending Act 13 of 2013 by which sub-section (5), as it then stood, has been deleted and has been substituted by a completely different provision. The consequence of the amendment has been noted above. We answer the reference in the aforesaid terms."
It is apparent that the issues which have been raised in this writ petition has already been decided by the Larger Bench therefore, this Court finds no good ground grant the prayer as made in this writ petition.
In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.2.2023
Nitesh
