Bombay High Court
Nalanda Magasvargiya Majoor ... vs The District Co-Op. Election ... on 11 July, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment. wp2833.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2833 OF 2015.
1. Nalanda Magasvargiya Majoor
Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Akola
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 1057, through its
President Shri Deepak Rupaji
Naik, Aged 60 years, resident of
Akot file, Akola, Tahsil and
District Akola.
2. Panchsheel Majoor Kamgar
Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Chikhali
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 625, through its
President Shri Kundan Govind
Sirsat, Aged 55 years, resident of
Chikhali, Tq. Murtizapur,
District Akola.
3. Pragati Majoor Kamgar
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Murtizapur
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 651, through its
President Shri Chandrashekhar
Narayan Alanare, Aged 51 years,
Resident of Murtizapur, District Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 :::
Judgment. wp2833.15
2
4. Swawalambi Majoor and Hamal
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd.,
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 140, through its
President Shri Devidas Maniram
Shinde, Aged 60 years, resident of
Dhobi Khadan, Jaitvan Nagar, Akola,
Tahsil and District Akola.
5. Akola Zilla Shrama Vahatuk
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd,
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 103, through its
Vice President Shri Sadanand Baburao
Ishwarkar, Aged 52 years, resident of
Jatharpeth, Akola, District Akola.
6. Chakradhar Majoor Kamgar
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd.
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 308, through its
President Shri Gajanan Dhanraj
Gawande, Aged 50 years, resident of
Tankhed, Tq. Akola, District Akola.
7. Sai nath Majoor Kamgar
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Kasarkhed
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 147, through its
President Shri Rajaram Laxmanrao
Lohakare, Aged 54 years, resident of
kasarkhed, Tq. Balapur,
District Akola.
8. Appaswami Majoor Kamgar
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Gawandgaon,
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 1453, through its
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 :::
Judgment. wp2833.15
3
President Shri Janakiram Ragla
Rathod, Aged 62 years, resident of
Gawandgaon, Tq. Patur,
District Akola. ..... PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. The District Cooperative Election
Officer -cum- District Deputy
Registrar, Cooperative Societies
Akola, Tahsil and District Akola.
2. The State Cooperative Election
Authority, through its Election
Commissioner, Central Building,
Pune, Tahsil and District Pune.
3. The Akola District Labour
Cooperative Societies Federation
Ltd., Akola, through its Chairman
Patrakar Colony, 5, Dr. Sarda
Building, in front of L.R.T. College,
Akola. ..... RESPONDENTS.
--------------------------
Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
--------------------------
Judgment. wp2833.15
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
& KUM. INDIRA JAIN,
JJ.
DATE : JULY 11, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Heard Shri A.M. Ghare, learned Counsel for the
petitioners, Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned Additional Government
Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri V.G. Wankhede,
learned Counsel for Respondent No.3. Considering the nature
of controversy raised and with the consent of the parties, we
have taken up the matter for final disposal. Rule is therefore
issued and is made returnable forthwith.
2. Short question to be looked into is - Whether
judgment dated 29.04.2015 in Writ Petition No.2113/2015,
delivered by the learned Single Judge enures to the benefit of
present petitioners ?
Judgment. wp2833.15
3. Petitioners, 8 in number are Labour Cooperative
Societies, affiliated to Respondent no.3 District Labour
Cooperative Federation. Its' general elections were due in
2015. As per judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge
the elimination of names of three petitioners in Writ Petition
No.2113/2015 from final voters list on the ground that they
have not paid supervision charges of 1% of total work allotted
by the Federation is, found to be erroneous. Consequently, the
finalization of voters list published on 03.02.2015, and an
order rejecting objection raised by those three societies passed
on 04.04.2015 by respondent no.1 Election Officer, were
quashed and set aside. A declaration was issued that no
election can be conducted to the Executive Committee of
respondent no.3 Federation on the strength of voters list then
published on 09.04.2015. Respondent no.1 was directed to
correct the final voters list accordingly and to include names of
representatives of said petitioner societies in it.
4. Accordingly, respondent no.1 on 07.05.2015, has
Judgment. wp2833.15
published a final voters list (supplementary) and added names
of those three petitioners to it. The respondent no.1 thereafter
proceeded further with the election program. These petitioners
on 02.05.2015, had raised a demand that their names should
also be included in voters list, as their case was on same lines
as that of the three petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2113/2015.
Respondent no.1 was to allot symbols to the contesting
candidates on 14.05.2015. It is in this background on
12.05.2015, in Summer vacations, a Writ Petition was filed
before the learned Vacation Judge and in this Writ Petition,
while issuing notice, learned Vacation Judge directed that until
further orders, result of election then scheduled on 22.05.2015,
be not declared. Accordingly though the elections have been
held, results are not declared.
5. On 11.03.2016, this Court modified the interim
orders and restrained respondent no.3 Federation from taking
any major policy decision or financial decisions.
Judgment. wp2833.15
6. Shri Ghare, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners, in this background has invited attention to the
fact that when on 03.02.2015 at provisional stage, when
voters list was published there were 54 members and the said
action in terms of notice dated 03.02.2015, was questioned by
raising objection. He points out that names of present
petitioners appeared at Sr.No. 7, 13, 17, 19, 23, 36, 40 and 44
respectively. Names of their representatives or their addresses
were not mentioned. In paragraph no.14 of the Writ Petition,
petitioners plead that when provisional voters list was
published and objections were invited, it was specifically
mentioned that only 13 members are eligible for voting and
contesting elections.
7. It is not in dispute that none of the 8 petitioners
before this Court raise any objection to provisional voters list
and objections were raised only by three petitioners in Writ
Petition No. 2113/2015. Their objections were heard on
23.01.2015, and by order dated 04.04.2015, respondent no.1
Judgment. wp2833.15
refused to interfere. This was then questioned in Writ Petition
No.2113/2015.
8. Thus, judgment in Writ Petition No.2113/2015,
expressly considers the grievance of three petitioners in that
matter and confines relief to them only.
9. Contention of Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for the
petitioners is that as this Court in judgment dated 29.04.2015
found that non-payment of 1% of supervision charges could not
operate as disqualification, present petitioners also needed to
be added in the voters list, needs to be appreciated in this
background.
10. Shri Fulzele, learned Addl. Government Pleader as
also Shri Wankhede, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents, submit that election being a technical matter,
objection raised within time and looked into by the Election
Officer could thereafter be looked into by the learned Single
Judgment. wp2833.15
Judge. They submit that petitioners acquiesced in the act of
Election Officer and permitted him to proceed further on the
strength of provisional voters list. Hence, they cannot turn
back after judgment dated 29.04.2015, and seek parity.
11. Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for petitioners in reply
points out that on 28.04.2014 itself respondent no.1 had
published the list of validly received nomination papers and in
that list, names of representatives of first 6 petitioners in
present matter figured.
12. Grievance of 8 petitioners initially is/was that names
of their representatives did not figure in provisional voters list.
They did not raise any objection, consequently, they were not
heard on 23.03.2015, and hence no orders on their alleged
grievance was passed and could have been passed on
04.04.2015. In this backdrop, contention that names of six
representatives of first six petitioners were included on
28.04.2015 by respondent no.1 in list of contesting candidates
Judgment. wp2833.15
appears to be strange. It is to be noted that the learned Single
Judge has delivered judgment on 29.04.2015 i.e. 1 day
thereafter. This development was not pointed by any of the
respondents to the learned Single Judge. Keeping in mind the
nature of election law, the learned Single Judge has expressly
restricted consideration to the grievance of three petitioners. It
needs to be reiterated that these three petitioners diligently
objected to the provisional voters list and they were also heard
by respondent no.1. The learned Single Judge after accepting
their grievance directed necessary correction and this is
apparent from the directions contained in paragraph no.10 of
the said judgment. Said paragraph 10 reads as under :
" 10. In the result, the petition is allowed.
The programme of finalization of voters' list
published on 3.2.2015 and the orders dated
4.4.2015 passed by the respondent No.1, are
hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, no
elections can be held to the Executive Committee
of the respondent No.3-federation on the basis of
the final voters' list published on 9.4.2015. The
Judgment. wp2833.15
respondent No.1 is directed to correct the final
voters' list accordingly and to include the names
of the representatives of the petitioner-Societies
in the voters' list for the elections of the Executive
Committee of the respondent No.3-federation, in
the absence of the objections other than those
which are pointed out in their replies, and to
hold the said elections as early as possible."
13. The last part of paragraph no.10 underlined by us
clearly takes note of the fact that others had not objected to the
provisional voters list and hence, the learned Single Judge did
not extend benefit to all similarly placed societies who
happened to be members of respondent no.3 Federation.
Petitioners did not find anything wrong with the election
process continuing then, and were happy with the earlier
provisional voters list. They did not take steps as per law to
see that names of their representatives are added in that list as
published on 03.02.2015. They were happy with the election
process as going on till the learned Single Judge added three
more societies to the process. These 8 petitioners are
Judgment. wp2833.15
disturbed because of opportunity received by the other three
societies and therefore, have found it necessary to participate in
election. Having not raised the objection initially and without
getting their eligibility ascertained at the hands of the election
officer, they cannot now seek directly in writ petition, a writ to
add their names in final voter's list. Such piece meal challenges
would delay the democratic process and defeat its time bound
completion. Petitioners have tried to take advantage of illegal
action of respondent no.1 and now cannot complaint about
correction in it at the instance of a wronged party that too by a
Court of law.
14. Moreover, the denial of equal treatment is by the
learned Single Judge and it has attained finality. Learned
Single Judge has only issued direction to add three names to
voters list. The voters list or order impugned in Writ Petition
No.2113/2015 was set aside only qua three petitioners therein.
Present petitioners are not beneficiaries thereof.
Judgment. wp2833.15
15. Petitioners therefore, in this situation, having
accepted the final voters list as published by respondent no.1
initially, cannot now turn back and claim parity. We find no
merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners. Writ Petition
is therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed judgment/order.
Uploaded by : R.G. Dhuriya. Uploaded on : 19.07.2016
