Patna High Court
Umesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 14 July, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Sinha
Bench: Alok Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18663 of 2024
======================================================
Umesh Kumar son of Sitaram Singh, Resident of village and P.O. Pirapur
Mathura, P.S. Goraul, District Vaishali at Hajipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Cooperative, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Joint Registrar (Marketing), Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate -cum-District Election Officer ( Cooperative),
Vaishali at Hajipur, District - Vaishali at Hajipur.
5. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur.
6. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hajipur Circle, District -
Vaishali at Hajipur.
7. The District Cooperative Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur, District - Vaishali at
Hajipur.
8. The Block Development Officer-cum-Returning Officer, Cooperative
Election, Goraul Block, District - Vaishali at Hajipur.
9. The Block Cooperative Officer, Goraul, District - Vaishali at Hajipur.
10. Pirapur Mathura Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., P.O.
Pirapur Mathura , P.S. and Block - Goraul , District Administrator. Vaishali
at Hajipur through the Administrator.
11. The Administrator, Pirapur Mathura Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative
Society Ltd., P.O. Pirapur Mathura, P.S. and Block Goraul, District - Vaishali
at Hajipur
12. The State Election Authority, Bihar, Patna through the Chief Election
Officer.
13. The Secretary, The State Election Authority, Bihar, Patna.
14. Nawal Rai, son of Late Malik Rai, Resident of village and P.O. Babhan Toli,
P.S. Goraul, District Vaishali at Hajipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
2/20
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader-27
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For Respondent No.14 : Mr. Raja Ram Rai, Advocate
Dr. Mithlesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-07-2025
Heard learned counsel, Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam for the
petitioner and Mr. Raja Ram Rai for private respondent no.14 and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application has been
prayed for the grant of following reliefs:
"(I) For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing
the order dated 29.10.2024/20.11.2024 passed by
the Respondent no.2 and contained in his memo
no.9159 dated 22.11.2024 issued under the
signature of the Respondent no.3, whereby and
where under the Respondent no.2 has been
pleased to direct for counting of votes of the
election dated 13.12.2019 held for constitution of
Managing Committee of the Respondent Society
but without supplying any copy of report of the
Respondent no.5 which is the only material
consideration by the Respondent no.2 for arriving
at impugned conclusion.
(II) For issuance of an appropriate writ
in the nature of MANDAMUS,commanding and
directing the Respondent no.5 to produce on
record his report submitted to the Respondent no.2
vide his letter no.1695 dated 17.08.2024 and on
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
3/20
production the same may be quashed by issuance
of an appropriate writ in the nature of
CERTIORARI on the ground that the aforesaid
report was submitted by the Respondent no.5
without providing any opportunity of hearing on
the basis of material available to him by the
Respondent no.14, the impugned report is not a
valid enquiry report and is, therefore, fit to be set
side.
(III) For a declaration that if on
consideration of all materials available with
Respondent society regarding grant of
membership to 392 applicants if the Administrator
of Society District , Cooperative Officer and the
Returning Officer -cum-Block Development
Officer, Goraul had published the voter list of
1547 voters of the Respondent Society, further
enquiry by the Respondent no.5 and his vague
report contrary to the final voter list published on
16.02.2023
could not have been relied upon by the
Respondent no.2 for the purposes of arriving at
his impugned conclusion and directing for
counting of votes polled on 13.12.2019 and
declaration of result accordingly.
(IV) For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding
and directing the Respondent Authorities for
holding a fresh election for constitution of
Managing Committee of the Respondent Society
on the basis of final voter list published under the
joint signature of Administrator of Society, the
District Cooperative Officer and the Block
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
Development Officer-cum- Returning Officer
Goraul and declare the result accordingly.
(V) For issuance of any other
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions for which the writ
petitioner would be found entitled under the
facts and circumstances of the case."
3. This case has had a chequered past.
4. This writ petitioner had earlier come to this Court
vide CWJC No.24786 of 2019. In the said writ application the
petitioner had prayed for the grant of following reliefs:
"(I) For issuance of an
appropriate writ in the nature of
CERTIORARI for quashing the proceedings
of the Managing Committee of Pirapur
Mathura Primary Agriculture Credit
Cooperative Societies (hereinafter referred
to as Pirapur Mathura PACCS) dated
29.01.2019 and the resolution passed
thereat by which the Managing Committee
of the Society in question was pleased to
reject 392 on-line application, the hard copy
whereof was made available to the society
by the Respondent no. 4 vide his letter no.
555 dated 21.01.2019 on the ground that the
decision for rejection of the on-line
applications for membership is vague and
not specific and, therefore, cannot be
sustained in the eye of law. (II) For issuance
of an appropriate writ in the nature of
MANDAMUS, commanding and directing
the Respondent no. 6 to include the name of
the applicants as a member of the society in
question whose applications for membership
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
were rejected by the Respondent no. 8 on
29.01.2019 but the copy of the rejection
order was never served upon the applicants
within 15 days of receipt of their application
through the Respondent no. 4 in view of the
provision contained under Rule-7(1) (e) of
the Bihar Cooperative Societies Rules,
1959, the applicants became the members of
the society in question. (III) For a
declaration that since under the deeming
clause of Rule-7 (1) (d) and (e) of the Bihar
Cooperative Societies Rules, 1959, the
applicants became the member of the
society and their membership fee has
already been deposited in the account of
society by the the State Government, they
deserve to the enlisted in the voter list of the
society in question prepared for holding
2019 election for the constitution of the
Managing Committee of the Society in
question. (IV) For issuance of any other
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction /directions for which the writ
petitioner would be found entitled under the
facts and circumstances of the case."
5. In support of the above reliefs claimed by the
petitioner in CWJC No.24786 of 2019, the petitioner on
12.12.2019 had submitted before this Court that 392 members had
applied online for Membership of Pirapur Mathura Primary
Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Limited (for brevity the
'Society') within time as per the schedule announced by the
authority. Under the deeming statutory provision, when within 15
days, the rejection was not notified to them, they had become
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
members of the Society and their names was also printed in the
voter list published on 30.06.2019. It was further submitted that
thereafter, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 14396
of 2019 by order dated 27.08.2019, had directed for issuance of a
fresh schedule and for the Authorities to verify that all on-line
applications for membership received, hard copy of the same be
sent by the competent authority to the concerned Society for a
decision in accordance with law. It was thus submitted by the
petitioner in the said writ application that the case of the petitioner
was not affected by such direction for the reason that pursuant to
the forwarding of the list of on-line applications, the Society had
not communicated rejection to the applicants within 15 days, as
required under the statute and, thus they would be deemed to be
co-members of the Society. It was next submitted that in terms of
the order of the High Court in CWJC No. 14396 of 2019, when a
revised schedule was published in the provisional voter list of the
Society, the name of all the 392 on-line applicants, who already
had become co-members, was not included leading to the party
affected to file objection before the Returning Officer-cum-Block
Development Officer of the concerned Block. It was further
submitted by the petitioner in the said writ application that no
action was taken, forcing the petitioner and others to move before
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
the Authority who in turn had directed the Returning Officer to
consider all issues raised by the petitioner and to do the needful,
but when nothing happened, again an application was made to the
Authority on 16.11.2019 and thereafter again on 20.11.2019 the
petitioner informed the Authority with regard to non consideration
of their grievance by the Returning Officer. It was further
submitted by the petitioner in the said writ application that again
the Authority wrote to the District Magistrate, Vaishali on
21.11.2019, to consider the grievance of the petitioner and to do
the needful, in accordance with law. On 12.12.2019 when CWJC
No.24786 of 2019 was being heard, it was informed by the
petitioner to this Court that election was going to be held on the
next day i.e. on 13.12.2019 and still the genuine grievance of the
petitioner and 391 other persons had been ignored in blatant
violation of the legal provisions, which as per the petitioner led to
the whole process being vitiated due to mala fide committed by the
authorities. This Court while passing an interim order on
12.12.2019 (Annexure-P-9) issued notice to some of the
respondents, but in the meantime allowed the election to proceed
on 13.12.2019, but no further process, including counting and
declaration of result was ordered to take place and the ballot was
directed to be kept under sealed cover until further orders of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
Court. In the interim order dated 12.12.2019 this Court had also
indicated that both the District Magistrate, Vaishali as well as the
State Election Authority, Bihar, Patna would look into the matter
and take appropriate action. Both of them were required to
categorically state as to what steps they had taken to ensure that
the bonafide grievance of any person, including the petitioner, was
not frustrated because of inaction on part of the concerned
authorities. The learned counsels appearing for the State as well as
the State Election Authority were to communicate the interim
order dated 12.12.2019 to the authorities concerned.
6. Subsequently, the aforesaid writ application bearing
CWJC No.24786 of 2019 was again taken up for hearing on
09.01.2023 and the writ application was disposed of in the
following terms (relevant operative portion is quoted herein below
for needful).
"7. From the entire pleadings on
record and the assistance received from the
learned counsels and the officers, the Court
has no hesitation to record that the
preparation of the voter list stands vitiated,
either due to non inclusion of 392 persons
even after expiry of the time limit for
considering their request for being added as
members or even otherwise, since the
Managing Committee which is the empowered
body to consider such applications to reject or
accept their claim since neither the number is
given nor the specific details of the persons
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
whose application was either rejected or
allowed has been brought before the Court.
The Secretary, Department of Co-operation,
Government of Bihar fairly submits that the
list itself stands vitiated and thus, the election
process cannot be said to be in accordance
with law.
8. Having given our anxious
thoughts, the Court would like to indicate,
what is going through its mind. On the one
hand, elections have been held minus the 392
persons who had applied well before the
preparation of the voter list. On the other
hand, the body which was competent to
consider i.e., the Managing Committee itself in
the resolution bought on record has accepted
the application of some of the persons and
rejected some, which clearly means that out of
392 persons at least some were allowed. Once
they were allowed, they had to be made
members and their names ought to have
figured in the voting list and they had a right
to take part in the election. Admittedly, all 392
persons have been left out. This 392 figure
compared to 1116, which is the numbers of
persons included in the voter list, is a large
number to be ignored without the due process
of law which clearly, at the cost of repetition,
the Court has held has not been done.
9. Accordingly, taking an overall
view in the matter, the Court holds that the
election cannot be sustained and the exercise
has to be redone right from the inception i.e.,
preparation of the voter list itself. However,
the said exercise will be limited to the 1116
members already there in the voter list and the
392 fresh applicants.
10. The State Election Authority is
directed to issue fresh programme starting
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
from the stage of preparation of voter list. The
Court would indicate that the consideration
would not extend beyond the 1116 persons
already being on the voter list and the
concerned 392 applicants and the exercise
shall be taken to its logical conclusion, strictly
in accordance with law including the statutory
aspect of the Act and the Rules as also the bye-
laws of the PACS. The same be initiated within
four weeks from today. Further, any objections
which may be filed shall be dealt with and
disposed of in time strictly in accordance with
law after proper consideration of both the
factual and legal aspects."
7. The aforesaid order dated 09.01.2023 was challenged
by respondent no.14 before Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil
Appeal No.5312 of 2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 22.04.2024 (Annexure-P/11) modified the order dated
09.01.2023 passed by this Court by holding and observing as
follows:
"4. We have heard learned senior
counsel for the appellant as well as learned
State counsel. The first respondent, who was
the writ petitioner before the High Court, has
not come forward.
5. In our considered opinion, the
issues relating to establishment, management
and affairs of the Society can be effectively
determined by the Statutory Authority, namely,
the Registrar, Cooperative Society, who can, if
need be, hold a Fact-Finding Enquiry and/or
summon the original records to determine
whether the 392 applicants had applied for
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
membership or not and if so, whether they
were eligible to be included in the voter list.
Without undertaking such an exercise, it will
be difficult to hold that the election of
Managing Committee of the Society held by
excluding those voters, is vitiated in law.
Consequently, we do not deem it necessary to
delve into the merits of the case and rather
remit the same to the Registrar, Cooperative
Society, Bihar, who may in his discretion
decide the entire controversy himself or refer it
to an Officer, not below the rank of Deputy
Registrar, to hold a Fact-Finding Enquiry;
determine the claim, if any, of 392 applicants
and consequently further adjudicate the
legality of the elections of the Managing
Committee already held. It goes without saying
that if the Competent Authority comes to the
conclusion that the 392 applicants never
applied for membership and/or were ineligible
to be included in the voter list, the elections
already held would warrant no interference.
However, if such applicants have been
deprived of their right to vote in the elections
of the Managing Committee, necessary
consequences must follow.
6. It is clarified that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the
case. The parties are, accordingly, directed to
appear before the Registrar, Cooperative
Society, Bihar, on 17.05.2024.
7. The impugned judgment of the
High Court dated 09.01.2023 is, thus, modified
and the instant appeal is disposed of in the
above terms.
8. All pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of."
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
8. It is pertinent to note that before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court the petitioner did not turn up to contest the case.
9. In due compliance of the order dated 22.04.2024
(Annexure-P/11) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
respondent no.2 entrusted the responsibility to respondent no.5 i.e.
the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tirhut
Division, Muzaffarpur to conduct a fact finding inquiry. The fact
finding inquiry was conducted by the Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur (respondent
no.5) in which both the petitioner as well as respondent no.14
participated. After conducting the fact finding inquiry, the
respondent no.5 submitted the fact finding report vide Letter
No.1695 dated 17.08.2024 to the respondent no.2 i.e. the Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna. Some of the important
findings given in the fact finding report, which are not in dispute
between the parties are as follows:
(a) Out of 392 persons, online applications of 13
persons for membership had already been accepted by the
Managing Committee prior to holding election on 13.12.2019,
thus leaving only 379 persons whose online application for
membership had not been accepted.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
(b) 13 persons whose online membership application
had been accepted had also participated in the election for
constitution of Managing Committee held on 13.12.2019. They
had voted in the election held on 13.12.2019.
(c) The petitioner had himself contested the election on
13.12.2019, which necessarily means that his membership also
had been accepted prior to 13.12.2019.
10. In light of the aforesaid findings given by the
respondent no.5 in his fact finding report dated 17.08.2024, serious
questions arise as to the locus of the petitioner to maintain the
present writ application for seeking the kind of reliefs which the
petitioner has prayed in this writ petition.
11. The undisputed position is that the petitioner was
himself one of the contesting candidate and he had contested the
election on 13.12.2019, which he could only have done by being a
member of the society. Manifestly therefore, the 13 persons whose
applications for membership had been accepted, the petitioner was
one of them and that is why he was allowed to contest the election
held on 13.12.2019. Regard being had to the fact that the petitioner
was one amongst the 13 persons whose membership had already
been accepted prior to 13.12.2019 and on 13.12.2019 the petitioner
had contested the election, the petitioner in the present writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
petition cannot be allowed to question the election held on
13.12.2019 in which he had himself participated. The writ
application is, therefore, not maintainable on this account.
12. The writ application is also not maintainable for the
reason that in light of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the
petitioner after being made a member of the society and being
allowed to contest the election on 13.12.2019 cannot be said to be
having any subsisting grievance. It is only the 379 persons who
were not considered eligible to be made members of the society
and could not participate in the election as their names did not
figure in the voter list, who can qualify as 'aggrieved persons' and
therefore, it is they or any one of them who could have filed the
present writ application. The petitioner cannot be allowed to
espouse the cause of 379 aggrieved persons, particularly when this
writ application has not been filed in a representative capacity and
there is nothing on record to even suggest that these 379 persons
had or have authorized the petitioner to agitate on their behalf. The
petitioner thus does not have the locus to file the present writ
application for seeking the kind of reliefs which has been prayed
for in the present writ petition and therefore the present writ
application is also not maintainable on this count.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
13. During the course of hearing, a shocking revelation
has come to light. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam while advancing argument kept on harping
and reiterating that the petitioner was never given a copy of the
fact finding report dated 17.08.2024 and therefore the impugned
order dated 29.10.2024/ 20.11.2024 passed by the respondent no.2
as contained in his Memo No.9159 is unsustainable in law because
the said impugned order is based on the fact finding report, thus
being violative of the principles of natural justice. In support of the
relief contained in paragraph-1 (I), the petitioner in paragraphs 34
and 41 of the writ application has also made affidavited statement
that a copy of the fact finding report was never given to the
petitioner. It is pertinent to reproduce paragraph-1 (I), 34 and 41 of
the writ application which are as follows:
"1(I) For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for
quashing the order dated
29.10.2024/20.11.2024 passed by the
Respondent no.2 and contained in his
memo no.9159 dated 22.11.2024 issued
under the signature of the Respondent no.3,
whereby and where under the Respondent
no.2 has been pleased to direct for counting
of votes of the election dated 13.12.2019
held for constitution of Managing
Committee of the Respondent Society but
without supplying any copy of report of the
Respondent no.5 which is the only material
consideration by the Respondent no.2 for
arriving at impugned conclusion.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
34. That, without service of a copy
of the report submitted by the Respondent
no.5 vide his letter no.1695 dated
17.08.2024, the Respondent no.2 had
accepted the report and in the same
language had directed for counting of votes
poled on 13.12.2019 and order to this effect
has been passed by the Respondent no.2
vide memo no.9159 dated 22.11.2024
communicated under the signature of
Respondent no.3.
A true photo stat copy of the
memo no.9159 dated
22.11.2024 is annexed
herewith and marked as
Annexure- "P-15" for
identification forming part of
this writ application.
41. That, it is relevant to submit that
it is only after submission of written notes
of argument that the enquiry was entrusted
to the Respondent no.5 who submitted his
report on 17.08.2024 and based upon that
the impugned order has been passed by the
Respondent no.2 but without supplying a
copy of report submitted by the Respondent
No.5 and providing any opportunity of
hearing after submission of report by the
Respondent No.5."
[Emphasis Supplied]
14. The entire case has been built by the petitioner
contending that the impugned order has been passed without
service a copy of the fact finding report, thereby building a case of
infraction of principles of natural justice.
15. During the course of hearing, the learned counsels
appearing for respondent no.14 and State Election Commission
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
pointed out that the entire case which has been built up in the writ
application by the petitioner is based on false statement. They
categorically submitted that the petitioner had received a copy of
the fact finding report dated 17.08.2024 on 10.09.2024. The
learned counsel appearing for respondent no.14 attracted the
attention of this Court to paragraph no.14 of the counter affidavit
filed by him in which it has been categorically averred and stated
as follows:
"14. That the writ petitioner and the deponent
received the complete records, along with the
report of Respondent No.5, on 10.09.2024. The
record comprises 382 pages.
A photocopy of the report dated
10.09.2024 is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure-R-14/5
to this counter affidavit."
16. In support of the above statement made by
respondent no.14, in paragraph-14 of its counter affidavit the
respondent no.14 has also enclosed a copy of the fact finding
report dated 17.08.2024 (at running page-459 of writ petition) and
on the said report clearly there is signature of the petitioner as
proof of having received a copy of the fact finding report on
10.09.2024.
17. The aforesaid revelation made by learned counsel
for the respondent no.14 was undoubtedly shocking to say the least
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
because it was not expected that the petitioner would indulge in
such a blatant lie, based on which the entire case has been built by
the petitioner in the writ application.
18. When the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam was confronted with the above
situation, he candidly admitted that his client i.e. the petitioner had
indulged in making false statement and the Court should take
appropriate action against the petitioner.
19. This Court has already expressed its view that the
present writ application is not maintainable in law and that the
petitioner also does not have the locus to file the present writ
application as he does not qualify in the category of 'aggrieved
person'. For these reasons as well as for the reason that the
petitioner has indulged in making false statement based on which
the petitioner has developed his entire case, the conduct of the
petitioner does not warrant this Court to grant any relief to the
petitioner in exercise of extraordinary and equitable remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relief under Article 226
involves the exercise of equitable principles. Article 226 of the
Constitution of India grants the High Court the discretion of
granting relief which must be guided by equitable considerations,
meaning thereby that the Court must consider fairness, justice and
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
the conduct of the parties involved. In the present case the conduct
of the petitioner is highly deplorable for having made false
statement at several places in the writ application and for building
his entire case based on such false narrative. This Court therefore,
refuses to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226
and dismisses the present writ application.
20. It is also considered appropriate to observe that
although it is the petitioner who has signed and sworn the affidavit
who is primarily responsible for making false statement, but the
lawyers who represent such kind of petitioners also have a
professional and legal obligation to ensure the accuracy and
truthfulness of the information they present in Court, including
affidavit.
21. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for
the reasons given above, the present writ application is dismissed
with cost of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty Thousand) to be paid by the
petitioner. This cost must be deposited by the petitioner by
18.08.2025 in the account of Patna High Court Legal Services
Committee. The Registry is directed to ensure that this cost is
deposited by the petitioner and in case it is not deposited by the
petitioner within the stipulated time, then an information must be
given to this Court immediately thereafter. In such circumstance,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18663 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
this Court may consider suo motu initiating contempt proceeding
against the petitioner for violating the orders of this Court.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 16.07.2025
Transmission Date N/A
