Yashwant Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 253 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                         AFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             WA No. 5 of 2022
Yashwant Verma S/o Late Pyarelal Aged About 54 Years Member of Seva
Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Godgiri, Registration No. 385, R/o Village And
Post Godgiri, Tahsil Belra, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh,
                                                                ---- Appellant
                                    Versus
1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of
     Cooperative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,
     Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2.   State Cooperative Election Commission Raipur, District Raipur
     (C.G.), Through It's Commissioner, Office At Mahila Thana Chowk,
     Chhotapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3.   Election Officer/ Returning Officer Seva Sahkari Samiti Maradit,
     Godgiri, Registration No. 385, Tahsil Berla, District-Bemetara (C.G.)
4.   Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society, Bemetara, District Bemetara
     (C.G.)
5.   Seva Sahkari Samit Maryadit Godgiri, Registration No. 385,
     Through Its Society Manager, Tahsil Berla, District - Bemetara
     Chhattisgarh.
                                                           ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Manish Upadhyay Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 4 : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Deputy Advocate General For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi Judge

Judgment on Board Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

14.01.2022

Heard Mr. Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned Deputy Advocate General

appearing for respondents No.1 and 4 and Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava,

learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 09.12.2021 passed by

the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.4930 of 2021, whereby

the writ petition filed by the appellant was rejected as not maintainable in

view of availability of efficacious alternative remedy under Section 64(2)

(v) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, for short 'Act of

1960'.

3. Respondent No.2 had notified election on 08.09.2021 in respect of

election of Board of Directors of Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative

Societies, including respondent No.5-Society. It is seen that the election

was to be held in two phases. It appears that the election in respect of

respondent No.5-Society was scheduled to be held in the second phase.

The last date for submission of nomination form and the last date for

scrutiny of nomination form were fixed on 23.11.2021 and 26.11.2021,

respectively. On scrutiny of nomination paper, the Returning Officer had

rejected the nomination paper of the appellant by an order dated

26.11.2021 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition). For the purpose of this

case, it is not necessary to dilate on the grounds on which the rejection of

nomination paper had taken place.

4. Challenging the said order rejecting the nomination form, the

appellant filed the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises.

5. It is contended by Mr. Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel for the

appellant that the learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that the

appellant has efficacious alternative remedy inasmuch as in terms of

Section 64(2)(v) of the Act of 1960, the Registrar cannot entertain the

issue relating to rejection of the nomination paper till declaration of the

results and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable and that the learned

Single Judge failed to notice that aspect of the matter.

6. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned senior counsel appearing for

respondents No.2 and 3, submits that no election dispute is to be

entertained by the Registrar during the period commencing from the

announcement of the election programme till the declaration of the

results. Thus, any dispute relating to election, including the rejection of

the nomination paper, has to be adjudicated by the Registrar in terms of

Section 64(2)(v) of the Act of 1960, but such dispute has to be raised only

after the declaration of the results of the elections and it is in that light,

the learned Single Judge had observed that the appellant has efficacious

alternative remedy. Accordingly, he submits that no interference is called

for with regard to the order under challenge and the writ appeal is liable

to be dismissed.

7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing

for the parties and have perused the materials on record.

8. Chapter VII of the Act of 1960 is under the heading of "Disputes and

Arbitration". Section 64(1) provides that, notwithstanding anything

contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute

touching the constitution, management or business, terms and conditions

of employment of a society or the liquidation of a society shall be referred

to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties thereto

are among any of the categories as indicated therein. For the purpose of

this appeal, it is not necessary for us to dwell upon such categories.

9. Section 64(2) provides that for the purpose of Section 64(1), any

dispute shall include the disputes as enumerated therein from Clauses (i)

to (v). Section 64(2)(v) refers to any dispute arising in connection with the

election of any officer of the society or representative of the society or of

composite society.

10. Proviso to Section 64(2)(v), however, lays down that the Registrar

shall not entertain any dispute under the aforesaid clause during the

period commencing from the announcement of the election programme

till the declaration of the results.

11. In view of the proviso, such a dispute relating to rejection of

nomination paper cannot be entertained by the Registrar before the

declaration of the results. However, legislative mandate is very clear that

any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the

society or representative of the society or of composite society, has to be

adjudicated by the Registrar.

12. The argument advanced by Mr. Upadhyay that as the Registrar

could entertain the dispute only after declaration of the result would make

an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this

juncture maintainable, cannot be accepted.

13. According to the scheme of the Act of 1960, any dispute relating to

election has to be entertained and adjudicated by the Registrar. An

election dispute cannot be allowed to be raised during the pendency of

the election programme until the declaration of the results. If the same is

allowed, it may have the potential of subverting and derailing the

democratic process of election. Therefore, an application under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking to raise such a dispute would also

be not maintainable.

14. In that view of the matter, we see no good ground to interfere with

the order passed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ

appeal is dismissed. No cost.

                         Sd/-                                       Sd/-

               (Arup Kumar Goswami)                      (N. K. Chandravanshi)
                    Chief Justice                                 Judge

Anu