Uttarakhand High Court
Salochna Devi vs Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd And ... on 3 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1977 of 2025 (M/S)
Salochna Devi ........Petitioner
Versus
Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Chandra and
Kailash Chandra, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.1.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the voter list of
Constituency 4, Niranjanpur (Female) for election of Cane Cooperative
Development Society Limited, Laksar ("the Society"); order dated
26.06.2025, by which an objection filed by the petitioner for
cancellation of the nomination of the Respondent no. 3, Smt. Sarveshi
Devi, has been rejected; as well as the communication dated
27.06.2025, by which symbols have been allotted to the candidates
contesting election.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner that she is
permanent resident of Village Bhagatanpur Majra, Niranjanpur, Tehsil
Laksar, District Haridwar, and is also a member of the Society; she is
elected delegate of the Society. Now, the election of Management
Committee of the Society is to take place, for which the petitioner has
already filed her nomination; the petitioner came to know that, in fact,
the respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, has also filed her
nomination. The petitioner gave an application to the society for
cancellation of the membership of the respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi
Devi, which, according to the petitioner, has been taken by her illegally
on the basis of forged documents. The petitioner requested for
cancelation of the membership of the respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi
Devi, but, by the impugned order dated 26.06.2025, the respondent
no.2, The District Assistant Registrar/Returning Officer of the Society
("the Returning Officer") has rejected the application filed by the
petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has challenged these orders.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, is not a farmer.
She cannot be a member of the Society. According to Clause 53(A)(18)
of the By-laws of the Society ("the By-laws"), the respondent no.3, Smt.
Sarveshi Devi, cannot be a member of the Management Committee
because she had not supplied sugarcane in the preceding three years
to the sugar factory.
5. Learned counsel for the Society submits that the
respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, is a farmer. She had purchased
a property in the constituency on 06.11.2024, which was mutated in
her name on 18.03.2025, which, it is argued, is evident by the extract
of Khatauni, which is part of Annexure No.11 to the writ petition. It is
submitted that the respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, is a new
member and the condition of Clause 53(A)(18) of the By-laws is not
attracted to her because this Clause itself reveals that it is not
applicable to the new members.
6. The Court requested learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner to indicate as to how a person, who has no land in
the constituency in some years in the past, may not be a member of
the Management Committee of the Society? He could not indicate any
Clause of the By-laws.
7. Clause 53(A)(18) of the By-laws of the Society reads as
follows:-
"53. (A) A person shall not be eligible to be a member of
the Management Committee or continue to be a member
of such Committee if:-
......................................................................................
......................................................................................
(18) He has not supplied sugarcane to the factory
through the Society in all the three preceding years,
but this condition shall not apply to the new
members."
8. Annexure No.11, the extract of the Khautani, has been
filed by the petitioner. According to it, the petitioner had purchased
land in the village on 06.11.2024, and mutation was done in her name
on 18.03.2025.
9. On behalf of the Society, it is being stated that the
respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, is a new member of the Society,
who was inducted a member in the year 2023-24. Therefore, supplying
sugarcane for the preceding three years condition, as enumerated in
Clause 53(A)(18) of the By-laws does not attract on it.
10. The respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, is a new
member of the Society, who was inducted in the Society in the year
2023-24. Annexure No.11, the extract of the Khautani, which has been
filed by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner had purchased
property in the Village Bhagatanpur Majra, Niranjanpur, Tehsil
Laksar, District Haridwar, on 06.11.2024, and her name was mutated
on 18.03.2025. She is a new member of the Society. Therefore, the
condition of supplying sugarcane to the factory through Society in all
the preceding three years shall not apply to the petitioner, in view of
Clause 53(A)(18) of the By-laws of the Society. Therefore, this Court is
of the view that the impugned order, by which the objection of the
petitioner has been rejected, does not warrant any interference.
Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
11. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
03.07.2025
Ravi Bisht
