Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Chourasia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29010
1 WP-38920-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 38920 of 2025
AJAY CHOURASIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Bagadia, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rishi Shrivastava -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anirudha Malpani - G.A for the respondent No.1/State.
Ms. Mini Ravindran - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
Shri Vishal Baheti, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nilesh Jagtap -
Advocate for the respondent No.6.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order dated 15/9/2025 passed by respondent No.3 whereby the
petition preferred by the petitioner in respect of non-inclusion of his name in the
list of the members of the Co-operative society of Trishla Grih Nirman Sahakari
Sanstha has been rejected.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is one of the members of
Cooperative Society named as Trishla Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit,
Indore. The earlier election of the Respondent No.6 Society was conducted in the
year 2017 and the final result has been declared by the Returning Officer in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 49 of M.P Co-operative Societies Rules,
1962 (hereinafter referred as the Rules, 1962) and in accordance with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29010
2 WP-38920-2025
provisions of M.P Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to
as 'the Act, 1960'). According to the provisions of Section 49 (7-A) (i) of the Act
of 1960, the term of Board of Directors and office bearers shall be five years from
the date on which the first meeting of Board of Directors is held. According to this
provision the tenure of the Respondent no. 6 Society expired on 04-03- 2022. The
office bearer of the Respondent no. 6 society has submitted an application before
the Respondent no. 4 within time,but no action has been taken by Respondent no.
4 and consequently by order no.1084 dated 30-03-2022, Respondent no. 4 has
exercised its power u/s 49 (7-K) (Kha) of the Act,1960, and appointed an
Administrator in place of Board of Directors for functioning the day to day
Business of the Society. In spite of completion of tenure, no action has been taken
by the Registrar in respect of election of the Society and, therefore, one of the
members of the Society Mr. Bhanwarlal has submitted Writ Petition
no.20190/2025 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by
this Court by its order dated 15-07-2025, thereby directing the Respondents to take
steps forthwith for the purpose of conducting election of the society and it was
directed that the Respondents should ensure that the elections be completed within
a period of 3 months from the date of the order in accordance with law. After
taking the cognizance of the order passed by this Court the Respondent no. 3 by
exercising its power under Rule 49-C (2) the Rules, 1962 appointed Registration
officer/Respondent No 5 for finalizing and publication of the membership list and
by the same order the Respondent no.4 was appointed as Appellate authority for
hearing appeal against the order of Returning officer. The Respondent no.
3/Election Authority Bhopal has declared election program of the Respondent no.
6 Society, by which the date for publication of the membership list was fixed on
06-08-2025, for submission of objection in respect of publication of membership
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29010
3 WP-38920-2025
list 13-08-2025, for deciding the objection as received on 14-08-2025 and for
publication of final membership list, the date was fixed as 14-08-2025 by the
Election Commission. The petitioner alongwith 35 members submitted objections
before the Returning Officer, mentioning the specific fact that the Petitioner and all
35 other members are the members of the Society, in spite of this the name of
Petitioner and all 35 members was missing from the membership list and, it was
prayed by them that their names may kindly be included in membership list. The
Respondent no. 5 rejected the application submitted by the Petitioner along with
35 other members on the ground that Petitioner's name is not mentioned in the
membership list. The Petitioner has submitted an Appeal before Respondent no.4
as permitted under the schedule but the same was not accepted by the Appellate
Authority and therefore, immediately Petitioner along with other objectors has
submitted Appeal u/s 57 (1) of the Act of 1960 before the Respondent no. 3 on 22-
08-2025. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered
as W.P. No. 34163/2025. The petition was disposed of by this Court vide order
dated 26.08.2025, wherein the Court directed the Respondent No. 3 to decide the
appeal of the petitioner. Pursuant to the order of the Court the respondent no.3
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 15.09.2025.
3. Senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent
No.3 dismissed the appeal relying on an audit report without verifying them from
the actual records which is contrary to Rule 49 of the Rules, 1962. He argued that
the said order is also not in conformity with the order passed by High Court in
earlier round of litigation in W.P No.34163/2025 decided on 26/8/2025. He
strenuously argued that in the said case, counsel for the State had given consent in
para 3 that in an case appeal is presented by the petitioner then the same shall be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29010
4 WP-38920-2025
duly accepted. He argued that in view of the aforesaid consent, the respondent
No.3 ought to have accepted and allowed the same and should not have rejected
the objections regarding non inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the list of
the members of the society.
This Court does not find any merit in the said submission.
Upon perusal of the order dated 26/8/2025 passed in W.P No.34163/2025, it is
clear that the State counsel had submitted that in case the appeal is presented by
the petitioner then the same shall be duly accepted and decided in accordance with
law. The said submission of counsel for the State cannot be construed to the extent
that the appeal filed by the petitioner has to be allowed by the respondent No.3.
The said statement was made considering the grievance of the petitioner that the
appeal was not being accepted by the respondent No.3 and thereafter, he made a
statement that the same shall be accepted and decided in accordance with law.
4. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner has no
alternative and efficacious remedy. He argued that since the respondent No.3 is
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Nirvachan Pradhikari (Authority constituted
under Section 57(F) of the Act,1960) the Registrar is inferior in rank and,
therefore, the remedy of appeal under Section 78 would not be efficacious remedy.
He argued that even the remedy under Section 64 of the Act, 1960 would not be
efficacious for the same reason as the dispute would be referred to an authority
which is inferior in rank to the respondent No.3. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court can interfere in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India as the electoral roll prepared by the respondents is illegal. To buttress his
submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court
in the case of Bar Council of Delhi and Ors. vs. Surjit Singh and Ors. reported in
1980 (4) SCC 211 and Pundlik vs. State of Maharastra & Ors. reported in (2005)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29010
5 WP-38920-2025
7 SCC 181.
5. Counsel for the respondent No.6 argued that the election process of the
Trishla Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha has already commenced by order dated
16/9/2025. Alongwith the list of documents, he has filed IA 1 and has also filed
election programme notified on 1/10/2025. The notices have also been published
in newspapers which has been filed as Annexure IA/3. He argued that once the
election process has commenced, the writ petition cannot be entertained in view of
the provisions of Section 64(2)(v) of the Act, 1960. In support of his submission,
he has placed reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench at Jabalpur in the
case of Kamla Verma and Ors.vs. State of M.P and Ors. in W.A No.243/2018 ,
order passed by another Division Bench at Jabalpur A rnab Das Gupta vs. State of
M.P & Ors. in W.A No.1575/2022 at Jabalpur on 13/12/2022, a judgment passed
by this Court in the case of Dayaram Dheemar and Anr. vs. State of M.P and Ors.
in W.P No.3439/2017 and order passed by co-ordinate Bench in the case of M.P
State Industrial Co-operative Federation Limited vs. Uttam Singh and Ors.
reported in 2003 (4) MPLJ 206 .
6. Counsel for the respondent No.3 also adopted the same arguments
regarding maintainability of the petition in view of availability of alternative and
efficacious remedy under Section 64(2)(v) of the Act, 1960 as the election process
has already commenced. She argued that the respondent No.3 is not the higher
authority empowered to decide the dispute under Section 64 of the Act, 1960. In
support of her submission, she has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the
Division Bench at Indore in the case of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari
Nirvachan Pradhikari vs. Rajendra Pokharna and Ors. in W.A No.2768/2025 and a
judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench at Jabalpur in the case of Shiv Kishore
Trivedi vs. State of M.P and Ors. in W.P No.29896/2023 . She also referred the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29010
6 WP-38920-2025
order passed by High Court in W.P No.20190/2025 (Bhanwar Lal vs. State of M.P
and Ors.) decided on 15/7/2025 by which the respondents were directed to
conduct the election of the society within a period of 3 months and, therefore, no
interim relief can be granted to the petitioner staying the election in question.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the question that arises for
consideration is that whether the petition can be entertained when admittedly the
election process has already commenced vide Annexure IA/1 and IA/2 which has
been filed by the respondent No.6.
8. In order to appreciate the aforesaid issue it is apt to reproduce Section
64(2)(v) of the Act, 1960. It reads thus:
"64. Disputes.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the
constitution, management or business, 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 the following:-
(a) xx xx xx
(b) xx xx xx
(c) xx xx xx
(d) xx xx xx
(e) xx xx xx
(f) xx xx xx
(2) For the purpose of sub-section
(1), a dispute shall include-
(i) xx xx xx
(ii) xx xx xx
(iii) xx xx xx
(iv) xx xx xx
(v) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any
officer of the society or representative of the society or or
opposite 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."
9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramdeo Sharma vs. Dy.
Registrar, Gwalior reported in 1993 RN 18 following the judgment passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29010
7 WP-38920-2025
Supreme Court in the case of K.K Shrivastava vs. Bhupendra Kumar Jain reported
i n AIR 1977 SC 1703 , the Division Bench held that in the matter of dispute
regarding election of members of any committee/Board of Directors of a Co-
operative Society, the proper forum is a dispute under Section 64 (2)(v) of the Act,
1960 and not by way of writ petition under Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The same view was followed by this Court in the case of
Ram Swaroop Dohare vs. Ayukta Sahakarith Avam Panjiyak Sahkari Sanstha,
M.P reported in AIR 1996 MP 187 and also in the case of Lakshya Ram vs.
Ramswaroop reported in 1997 RN 113 HC .
10. In the case of Ram Singh vs. State of M.P. and others, 2008(4) MPLJ
353 a Division Bench of this Court considering the statutory bar under Section 64
of the Act, 1960 held thus:
"11. Coming to the question of eligibility of member in the
voter list, it is disputed question of fact whether the voter list
was correctly prepared, whether or not it was prepared by the
management. These disputed question of fact cannot be gone
into in writ petition. Matter of preparation of voter list is
subject-matter which has to be raised in election dispute
under section 64 of the Act, 1960 as held by this Court in
Akbar Mohd. Khan and another vs. State of MP and others,
2002 (2) MPLJ 165. In Shiv Narain Pandey vs. Satish Tiwari,
1998 RN 178, this Court held that election should be allowed
to be completed peacefully without any interruption from any
forum. In (1998) 2 MPLJ 20 (DB) the dispute related to
earmarking of the particular constituency writ was held to not
maintainable as remedy lies in filing election dispute. As per
proviso to sub-section (2) of section 64 of the Act, 1960
legislative intention is clear of completion of election
unhindered; it is the view of this Court in Radheshyam vs.
Chairman, Sahakari Samiti, AIR 1976 MP 156. Dispute as to
voter list, nomination papr is to be raised in election dispute
under section 64 of the Act, 1960 not in writ petition is
consistent view taken in Radheshyam vs. Chairman, Sewa
Sahakari Samiti, 1989 MPLJ 208 = 1989 RN 99, Ramdeo
Sharma vs. Dy. Registrar, Gwalior, 1993 RN 18, Ram
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29010
8 WP-38920-2025
Swaroop, Dohare vs. Ayukta Sahkarita, AIR 1996 MP 187,
Jagdish Sharma vs. State of MP, 1996 RN 60, and Suresh
Chandra Jain vs. State of MP, 1996 RN 131."
11. It is also useful to refer to the judgment of this Court passed in the case
o f Bhopal Co-operative Wholesale Consumer Stores Ltd., Bhopal vs. M.P. Co-
operative Societies, Tribunal Bhopal and others, 2002(2) MPLJ 542 wherein in
paras 15 and 16 it is observed thus:
"15. This Court has taken the consistent view that election
should be allowed to be completed peacefully without any
interruption from any forum. In Shiv Narayain Pandey vs.
Satish Tiwari, 1998 RN 178, this Court laid down that no
interference should be made by any form in the process of
election. 16. In Radheshyam vs. Chairman, Sahkari Samiti
AIR 1979 MP 156 (sic) this Court observed that election
should be allowed to be completed unhindered. In
Radheshyam vs. Chairman, Sewa Sahkari Samiti 1989 MPLJ
208 =1989 RN 99, this Court again emphasized that dispute
as to the voter list should be raised in election dispute under
Section 64 of the Act, 1960 after election is over and and not
in the writ petition. In Ramdeo Sharma vs., Dy. Registrar,
Gwalior, 1993 RN 18, this Court again cautioned from
making interference in the election process before its
completion. Similar is the view taken by this Court in
Ramswarup Dohare vs. Ayukta Sahkarita, AIR 1996 MP
187; Jagdish Sharma vs. State of M.P., 1996 RN 60 and
Suresh Chandra Jain vs. State of M.P. 1996 RN 131. In
Bhawani Shankar Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others,
1998(2) MPLJ 20 this Court emphasized that dispute as to
the election should be raised in the dispute under Section 64
of the Act, 1960 after completion of the election. Registrar or
Courts are cautioned not to make interference in peaceful
completion of process. Dispute has to be raised and settled
later on."
12. In a recent judgment rendered in the case of Prakash Motiram Chavan
vs. Harichand and others, (2015) 16 SCC 448 the Apex Court had laid down the
principle that after commencement of the election process, no interference is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29010
9 WP-38920-2025
warranted at that stage.
13. The judgment relied by the counsel for the petitioner passed in the case
of Surjit Singh (supra) does not deal with the provisions of Co-operative Societies
Act. In the case of Pundlik (supra) it was also held that normally the High Court
could not interfere in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India at the stage of preparation of list of voters but such action must be in
accordance with law. However, in the present case, the election process has
already commenced, and there is a specific bar under Section 64 (2)(v) of the Act,
1960. In the matter of dispute regarding election of members of any
committee/Board of Directors of a co-operative society, the proper forum is a
dispute under Section 64 (2)(v) of the Act, 1960.
14. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and also considering the
order passed by this Court in W.P No.20190/2025 where a direction has been
passed to conduct the election of the society within period of 3 months, it is held
that the writ petition cannot be entertained as the election process has already
commenced.
15. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. However, if so advised, the
petitioner may avail the alternative and efficacious remedy after completion of
election especially in light of the provisions envisaged under Section 64 of the
Act, 1960.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
