Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2021
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
W.A. No.1244/2020
Satish Kumar Pandey and others
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.A. No.1227/2020
Sayyed Akhtar Mushtaq
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ? Yes/Not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri B.D.Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/
State.
Shri Siddharth Sharma on behalf of Shri Aditya Khandelkar, learned
Counsel for the respondent no.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Jabalpur: 18-03-2021)
Per: V.K.Shukla, J.
Regard being had to the commonalities of both writ appeals which
are filed under Section 2(1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalya (Khand Nyaypeeth
Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 01-12-
2020 passed in W.P.No.6336/2020 by the learned Single Judge, whereby
writ petition has been dismissed.
2. The appellants/writ petitioners filed writ petition challenging the
order dated 04-03-2020 passed by the respondent no.5 by which the
election programme of Board of Directors of Anantpur Grah Nirman
Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, District Rewa was declared and the election
dated 11-09-2019 of Board of Directors of the said society was cancelled.
2. On 11-09-2019, Election Authority had appointed Shri S.N.Singh
Senior Cooperative Inspector as Returning Officer of Anantapur Grah
Nirman Shahkari Samiti Maryadit, District Rewa and the Election
programme was declared. Counting of votes was to be done in Special
General Meeting of Society on 10-10-2019 and vacant post was to be
filled up by 11-10-2019 and thereafter election of President and Vice-
President was to be completed by 14-10-2019. On 14-10-2019, valid
nominations were total 19 in number. Thereafter, on 05-10-2019, list of
11 valid candidates were declared after withdrawal of nomination forms
by some of the candidates. Since there were 11 posts, therefore, the
Returning Officer on 05-10-2019 declared that the election is not
necessary as valid candidates were only 11 in number for the 11 posts.
The Returning Officer declared the result in General Meeting of Society
on 10-10-2019. The Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative Society had sent
a report to the Election Authority that on inspection of General Meeting
on 10-10-2019, Returning Officer nor Manager of Society was found
there. No application of Returning Officer for remaining absent in
General Meeting was found. Society Manager was called with all the
documents but he did not appear in the office of Deputy Commissioner
and also switched off his cell phone. According to him, election was not
completed as per election programme on 10-10-2019 and there was
break in continuity of election procedure. Members of the society were
not informed and elections conducted were suspicious. Joint
Commissioner has sent his opinion alongwith the enquiry report that
Returning Officer Shri S.N. Singh has not conducted elections as per the
procedures and election process has vitiated. On the basis of the said
report, impugned order dated 04-03-2020 was passed and election was
cancelled.
3. The respondent no.5 has filed reply before the learned Single
Judge and stated that complaints were received by the answering
respondents as well as by the office of Deputy Registrar Cooperative
Society Rewa. On 10-10-2019 enquiry was conducted and the report
was submitted that it was necessary to stop the election process of the
society to ensure the credibility of the election process as there were
serious doubts regarding the manner in which the election was
conducted. As per the report dated 19-11-2019, entire election process
of the society was corrupted. The order to cancel the election was passed
under Rule 49-D of the Cooperative Rules, 1962. It was further submitted
that as per Section 57-F of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, it
was the duty of the Election Officer to see that free, fair and impartial
elections are conducted. In view of the above , the impugned order does
not suffer from any illegality.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The learned Single Judge after referring to the report held that the
Election Authority was justified in cancelling the election as the election
was not conducted as per the election programme. Rule 49 G(3) of the
Cooperative Societies Rules, 1962 gives power to Election Authority
to declare fresh election due to irregularities in procedure which vitiates
election. As per the enquiry report since there was no election, therefore,
the impugned order was rightly passed.
6. In the report dated 05-10-2019 sent by the Returning Officer
whereby he had clearly mentioned that 23 nomination papers were
received and list of 19 valid nomination papers were issued as per
Form Six-13 and after withdrawal of the nominations, only 11 names
had remained in the list for 11 posts and therefore, the election was not
necessary. He declared the result in Form Six-17. The Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Society, Rewa, in his enquiry did not record statement of any
candidate who either alleged that he did not withdraw nomination or that
his nomination was wrongly shown as withdrawn.
7. In the present case, on 05-10-2019, list of 11 valid candidates were
declared after withdrawal of nomination forms by some of the
candidates. It was also informed by the Returning Officer that since
there were 11 posts, therefore, the election was not necessary as valid
candidates were only 11 in number. The Returning Officer declared the
result in the General Meeting of the Society on 10-10-2019. Once the
result was declared by the Returning Officer holding that no election
was necessary because only 11 valid nomination were there as against
11 posts, therefore, there was no jurisdiction with the Election
Authority to cancel the legal and valid election conducted by the
Returning Officer. Once the Returning Officer had declared the result
of the election, the Election Authority had no jurisdiction or authority
to cancel the election and declared fresh election programme for
election. Under Section 64(v) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960,
there is specific bar that the Registrar shall not entertain any dispute
under the clause during the period commencing from the
announcement of the election programme till the declaration of the
results and the remedy is provided for raising a dispute. In respect of
election, clause 64(v) is relevant, which reads as under :
"64(v) Any dispute arising in connection with
the election of any officer of the society or
representative of the society or of composite
society:
Provided that the Registrar shall not entertain
any dispute under this clause during the period
commencing from the announcement of the
election programme till the declaration of the
results."
8. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the learned Single Judge has
erred in law while passing the order of cancellation of the election
though the election was held in accordance with law and the Returning
Officer has already declared the election result.
9. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are allowed. The impugned
order dated 01-12-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the
order dated 04-03-2020 passed by respondent No.5 are quashed.
( MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
hsp.
Digitally signed by
HAR SAHAY PATERIYA
Date: 2021.03.23
11:36:39 +05'30'
