Jagdish Prasad S/O Shri Dhaniya vs The Rajasthan State Cooperative ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 874 Raj/2

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 874 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 27 January, 2023

Rajasthan High Court

Jagdish Prasad S/O Shri Dhaniya vs The Rajasthan State Cooperative ... on 27 January, 2023

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

[2023/RJJP/000722]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1716/2023

Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Dhaniya, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
Koluwa, District Dholpur (Rajasthan).

                                                                          ----Petitioner

                                         Versus

1.       The Rajasthan State Cooperative Eleciton Authority, Jaipur,
         10-B, Sansthagat Shetra, Raisem Bhawan, Jhalana Dungri,
         Jaipur.

2.       The District Collector, District Dholpur.

3.       The Regional Returning Officer Cum Additional Registrar,
         Cooperative Society, Bharatpur Division Bharatpur.

4.       The    Unit      Returning        Officer      Cum          Deputy   Registrar,
         Cooperative Society, Dholpur.

5.       The Election Officer, Gram Panchayat Seva Sahkarri Samiti
         Ltd., Koluwa, District Dholpur

6.       Bacchu Singh S/o Motiram, R/o Koluwa Ka Pura, Gram
         Panchayat Koluwa, District Dholpur.

7.       Pinky W/o Mahendra Singh, R/o Koluwa Ka Pura, Gram
         Panchayat Koluwa, District Dholpur.

8.       Shailendri W/o Dharmendra Kumar, R/o Ratanpura, District
         Dholpur.

9.       Ramdas S/o Buddhi, R/o Koluwa Ka Pura, Gram Panchayat
         Koluwa, District Dholpur.

10.      Tarachand S/o Mangal Singh, R/o Koluwa Ka Pura, Gram
         Panchayat Koluwa, District Dholpur.

11.      Ramniwas S/o Vipatiram, R/o Ratanpura, District Dholpur.

                                                                       ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chitrank Sharma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 27/01/2023

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:-

[2023/RJJP/000722] (2 of 3) [CW-1716/2023]

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition and by an appropriate writ of madamus, order or direction in nature thereof:

i) The respondent No.1 to 5 may kindly be directed to reinstate the process of election for the post of Member of Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Koluwa, District Dholpur by accepting the application form of the petitioner by ensuring his participation in the election in question scheduled to be held on 31.01.2023.

ii) The respondent No.1 to 5 may also be directed to withhold the election process for the post of Member of Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Koluwa, District Dholpur scheduled to be held on 30.01.2023 unless and until the process of election for the post in question reinstated by excluding the candidate who are not eligible to contest the election for the post in question.

iii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case also be passed in favour of humble petition along with cost of writ petition."

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the

election of Member of Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Koluwa,

District Dholpur, which is going to be held on 30.01.2023.

Admittedly, the process for holding election of the society has

already been notified by the respondents.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shaji K. Josep

Vs. V. Viswanath and Ors., reported in 2016 (4) SCC 429,

wherein para No.14, it has been held as under:-

"14. In our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with the process of election especially when the process of election had started upon publication of the election program on 27th January, 2011 and more particularly when an alternative statutory remedy was available to Respondent No. 1 by way of referring the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations.

[2023/RJJP/000722] (3 of 3) [CW-1716/2023]

So far as the issue with regard to eligibility of Respondent No. 1 for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie it appears that Respondent No. 1 could contest the election, we do not propose to go into the said issue because, in our opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without court's order. Very often, for frivolous reasons candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election."

Since, the election process has already been commenced, and

going to be held on 30.01.2023, therefore, in my view, no case is

made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.