Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1884/2023 on 21 July, 2023
WPMS No.1999 of 2023
With
WPMS No.1819 of 2023
With
WPMS No.1884 of 2023
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Devesh
Kandpal and Mr. Harendra Belwal,
Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate
General with Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief
Standing Counsel with Mr. Yogesh
Pandey, Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate
for the Chairman/President and
Secretary of Uttarakhand Co-
operative Election Authority
Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
Heard.
Admit.
Learned Chief Standing
Counsel takes notices on behalf of
respondent nos.1, 4 and 5.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate
takes notices on behalf of
respondent nos.2 and 3.
Counter affidavits filed in
WPMS No.1819 of 2023 and WPMS
No.1884 of 2023 are taken on
of 2023 and 2 of 2023, stand
disposed of accordingly.
Counter affidavit in WPMS
No.1999 of 2023 may be filed within
four weeks.
Two weeks thereafter, rejoinder
affidavit, if any, may be filed.
List for final hearing on
11.10.2023.
Heard on Interim Relief
Applications (IA) Nos. 1 of 2023, 1 of
2023 and 1 of 2023.
It is the case of the petitioners
that the society is registered under
the Uttarakhand Co-operative
Societies Act, 2003 (for short, "the
Act"). As per Section 29 of the Act,
the tenure of the Committee of
Management is five years, which is
going to expire soon. But, the
respondent authorities are not
conducting election on time. The
petitioners seek direction that the
respondent nos.2 and 3 be directed
to appoint the Returning Officer,
who shall conduct the elections of
the co-operative society as per the
provisions of the Act and till the
elections are held, the present Board
of the Society be permitted to
continue.
Learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner would
submit that it was the duty of the
respondent authorities to conduct
the elections within stipulated time,
but it could not be done. It is not
being conducted so as to enable
them to appoint some administrator.
It is argued that it would defeat the
very purpose of the Act.
Learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners has
placed reliance on the judgment
dated 23.04.2018, passed in the
case of WPMS No.755 of 2008,
Surendra Singh Parihar vs. State of
Uttarakhand and another and
connected matters, in which, it is
argued that the Court in the
similarly situated matters directed
the State Government to conduct
elections and till the elections are
conducted the Chairman was
permitted to continue the duties of
the Administrator.
Learned Chief Standing
Counsel would submit that it is not
the case of interim relief
application(s). He would submit that
the respondent no.3 had filed
objections to the interim relief
application. According to it, the
scrutiny of the various Committees
of the various Societies is underway.
The objections filed by the
respondent no.3 reflects as if, the
respondent no.3 is working under
the directions of the Hon'ble
Minister; along with the objections,
the Minutes of the Meeting chaired
by the Hon'ble Minister is enclosed.
When these lines were
dictated, learned counsel for the
respondent no.3 would submit that,
the decision was taken in the
meeting held on 16.06.2023. The
minutes, which have been enclosed
as Annexure No.1 with the
objections to the interim relief
application revealed that there is no
minutes, as such. It simply records
the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Minister. It cannot be said to be the
Minutes of any Resolution.
Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner would submit that, in
fact, the intention of the respondent
authorities is to appoint political
person as an Administrator in the
respective cooperative societies.
When asked, after a while,
learned Chief Standing Counsel,
under instructions, would submit
that in the eventuality of
appointment of an Administrator in
the societies, a decision is taken
that only Government official/officer
shall be appointed Administrator till
the elections are held.
The Act makes provisions for
elections and also provides the
contingencies if, elections are not
held within time. It empowers the
authorities/State herein to appoint
the Administrator of the Committee,
as the case may be.
On behalf of the petitioner,
reference has been made to the
judgment in the case of WPSS
No.755 of 2018, decided by this
Court on 23.04.2018. But, fact
remains that while giving directions
in that case this Court had taken
note of the provisions of Article 243-
ZK of the Constitution.
Learned State counsel would
submit that, in fact, the Part IXB of
the Constitution, which contains
Article 243-ZK is not applicable to
the State, due to non-rectification by
the State, as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India vs. Rajendra N. Sah and
another, (Civil Appeal Nos. 9108 -
9109 of 2014).
Having heard, this Court is of
the view that the Act itself provides
a mechanism that in case, elections
are not held, how the societies will
be run by appointing Administrator,
etc. The apprehension of appointing
political person as Arbitrator has
been dispelled by learned Chief
Standing Counsel by giving a
statement in the Court that in the
eventuality of appointing an
Arbitrator, only Government
officials/officers shall be appointed
as an Arbitrator.
The Court takes on record the
statement given by the learned Chief
Standing Counsel.
In view of these circumstances,
this Court does not see any reason
to allow the interim relief
applications. Interim relief
applications in all the petitions
stand rejected at this stage.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
21.07.2023
Sanjay
