Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Arora Alias Vasudev vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6726
1 WP-10128-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 22 nd OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10128 of 2025
SURESH ARORA ALIAS VASUDEV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri P.C. Chandil - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri Raghvendra Dixit - Advocate for the respondents No.4 &5.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
preferred seeking following reliefs:-
"(a) Notice of election Annexure P1 issued by the respondent No. 5 and proceedings
in furtherance thereof may kindly be quashed.
(b) A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against respondent No 4 to receive
membership fee from the petitioner and include the name of the petitioner in the list
of members of the respondent No. 4/society, duly publish the list before election and
conduct the election in accordance with the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court in
W.P. 29107/2023.
(c) Any other suitable writ order or direction in the facts & circumstance of the case
this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be granted."
2. At the outset learned counsel for the respondents No.4 & 5 placed before
this Court the judgement of Apex Court in the matter of Shri Sant Sadguru
Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and
Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 509; and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6726
2 WP-10128-2025
while referring para 12 of the aforesaid judgment it has been submitted that once
the process of election is set in motion, Court should not stay the continuation of
the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of
rules and it would be open to the person aggrieved to challenge the election of the
returned candidate, if aggrieved, by means of an election petition before the
Election Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondent had further submitted that
the petitioner even doesn't have any locus to maintain the present petition, as he is
not a member of the society and had already been expelled in the year 2013. On
the basis of aforesaid judgment and on account of locus it is argued that the
present petition is not maintainable.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the aforesaid legal
position and he submits that the petitioner may be permitted to challenge the
election, if he is aggrieved by the result.
4. In the wake of aforesaid fact, this Court deems it expedient to dispose of
the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to assail the Election results in
accordance with law, if he is aggrieved by the result. If an Election petition is
preferred by the petitioner, Respondent No.4 and 5 would be free to raise the
ground of locus, apart from merits and the Tribunal shall deal with the issue of
locus first and then decide the merits, if required.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
