SPA/997/2018
2025 Latest Caselaw 926 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

SPA/997/2018 on 15 July, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                                  2025:UHC:6153-DB
                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                          COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.            directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  SPA/997/2018
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

There is no representation for the appellant.

2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 to 5.

3. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for respondent nos. 6 & 7.

4. This intra-court appeal is, filed by the writ petitioner, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2627 of 2018. In that writ petition, appellant had sought quashing of order dated 21.07.2018, issued by Joint Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Uttarakhand, whereby, respondent nos. 6 & 7 were nominated as member of a Cooperative Society. Appellant also challenged the consequential order dated 22.07.2018, issued by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttarakhand. The writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge by holding that the issue raised by petitioner in the writ petition, can only be decided in an election petition, as election process has commenced and any interference, after commencement of election process, would not be warranted. Paragraph Nos. 11 of the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2018 is extracted below:-

"11. In paragraph no. 126 of the same judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court had stressed the fact that elections should only be challenged by means of an election petition and writ petition is not a remedy. Although the findings was 2025:UHC:6153-DB made by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the elections of Legislative Assembly and Parliament but in my humble opinion, the same principle should also be applicable in the present case as the petitioner has a remedy in the Statute itself as well as under the Rules, where he can raise a similar dispute before the Registrar under the provisions of the Rules as has already been referred above.

12. In view of the above observations, the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed."

5. Learned State Counsel as well as Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 & 7 submit that the nomination made by the State Government, vide order dated 21.07.2018 was only for a period of five years, which has expired long back, therefore, the relief, as claimed by the appellant in his writ petition and also in this appeal, do not survive.

6. This Court finds substance in the said submission.

7. Since respondent nos. 6 & 7 were nominated as Government nominee for a particular period, therefore, after expiry of the period for which they were nominated, they cannot continue as member. Thus, after completion of their term, there is no question of their removal from the office as member.

8. Thus, the relief, as prayed, cannot be granted. Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.07.2025 Navin NAVEEN Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e

CHANDRA 4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D0 95C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.07.15 17:54:01 +05'30'