Digvijay Singh Vs. Tehsildar Tehsil Nagina, District, Bijnor and Others

Digvijay Singh vs Tehsildar Tehsil Nagina, District, Bijnor and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 05, 1994

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/450309

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/450309
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Ravi S. Dhawan and ;G.S.N. Tripathi, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 05, 1994
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 24867 of 1994
Subject: Trusts and Societies

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Election - objection on contesting election - Section 29 of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1966 - petitioner file nomination papers - objections raised as he had been debarred from contesting election by an order of collector and also has been convicted under U.P. Goondas Act, 1970 - petitioner contends that he w...

Key legal issue: Trusts and Societies
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226; Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1966 - Sections 29; Uttar Pradesh Goondas Act, 1970

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Digvijay Singh

Advocate Mr. Devendra Pratap, Adv.

Respondent

Tehsildar Tehsil Nagina, District, Bijnor and Others

Advocate Standing Counsel

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226; Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1966 - Sections 29; Uttar Pradesh Goondas Act, 1970
Reported In: AIR1995All96

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........has been debarred from seeking an election. thus, the petitioner will be kept out of the arena of elections no matter what the post may be.7. the third submission is misconceived, and a misunderstanding of the, law. the petitioner was convicted under the u. p. goondas act, 1970. this order of conviction of the court below or for that matter the confirmation of it in appeal or revision, notwithstanding that it was stayed by the high court will not aid the petitioner to stand for election. all that has happened is that the order under challenge, i.e., the conviction, has been stayed; the existence of the order under challenge has not been wiped out, air 1992 sc 1439 : 1992 air scw 1517 (m/s. shree chamundi mopeds ltd. v. church of south india trust assocn., madras). in the facts and circumstances of present case, though a stay order, obtained by the petitioner in another petition, may have stayed his internment or externment as a goonda but the order of conviction, unless quashed, stands.8. in these circumstances, the court is not inclined to exercise its discretion to interfere by the issue of a writ on this petition, as this is not a fit case in which a prerogative writ ought to issue. in so far as the other petitions are concerned, we express nothing on merits and the petitioner, if he so desires, may submit on those petitions on merits.9. this writ petition is misconceived, not maintainable and accordingly dismissed.10. petition dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

RAVI S. DHAVAN, J.

1. The petitioner, Digvijai Singh alias Diggi, in reference to the elections of the co-operative societies which are in progress, filed his papers from the constituency of Asadullahpur Prithi on 2 May, 1994. On the nomination papers which he had filed, the petitioner faces objections from others on two grounds, firstly, that the petitioner had been debarred from constest-ing any elections by an order of the Collector and secondly, he has been convicted under the U.P. Goondas Act, 1970.

2. On each of the aspects referred to above, the petitioner submits, he had filed writ petitions. Against the first aspect, it is writ petition No. 9314 of 1993; Digvijai Singh alias Diggi v. Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad and others. Against the second, it is writ petition No. 9509 of 1992; Digvijai Singh v. District Magistrate/ Registrar, Cane Co-operative Societies and others. In Writ Petition No.'9509 of 1992, the order by the petitioner had been debarred from contesting elections for three years was initially suspended, but subsequently recalledand vacated. In the second writ petition, the internment of the petitioner under U. P. Goondas Act, 1970 by the order of the Commissioner in appeal, had been stayed by the High Court.

3. The Election Officer by his order of 5-5-1994 Annexure-2 to the writ petition has rejected the nomination of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner now cannot stand for election as a delegate to a cooperative society.

4. This order aggrieves the petitioner, and has been challenged by this writ petition. The contention is firstly, that at worst he had been debarred from holding a post, and to be a delegate does not amount to holding a post; the order of the Election Officer cannot restrain him from seeking an election or filing his nomination as he is not contesting an election to an office. The second submission is that the order of the Commissioner by which he had been convicted (by the Collector/ District Magistrate) under the U. P. Goondas Act, 1970, having been stayed by the High Court, there is no bar on him to seek an election.

5. The Court has heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of this petition as also the records of the other two writ petitions. The Court is not inclined to interfere in the course of election by this writ petition. Firstly nominations having been filed and processed without illegality, and the election schedule having been commenced and the polling set for 14 August, 1994, the conduct of the election cannot be stalled by this Court.

6. Secondly, the Court is not impressedby the submission that the petitioner seeking an election as a delegate to a co-operative society, is not an election to a post. This argument is merely to sidetrack the restraint in the order of the Election Officer, in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner. The post will come later. The restraint on the petitioner is that he has been debarred from seeking an election. Thus, the petitioner will be kept out of the arena of elections no matter what the post may be.

7. The third submission is misconceived, and a misunderstanding of the, law. The petitioner was convicted under the U. P. Goondas Act, 1970. This order of conviction of the court below or for that matter the confirmation of it in appeal or revision, notwithstanding that it was stayed by the High Court will not aid the petitioner to stand for election. All that has happened is that the order under challenge, i.e., the conviction, has been stayed; the existence of the order under challenge has not been wiped out, AIR 1992 SC 1439 : 1992 AIR SCW 1517 (M/s. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Assocn., Madras). In the facts and circumstances of present case, though a stay order, obtained by the petitioner in another petition, may have stayed his internment or externment as a goonda but the order of conviction, unless quashed, stands.

8. In these circumstances, the Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion to interfere by the issue of a writ on this petition, as this is not a fit case in which a prerogative writ ought to issue. In so far as the other petitions are concerned, we express nothing on merits and the petitioner, if he so desires, may submit on those petitions on merits.

9. This writ petition is misconceived, not maintainable and accordingly dismissed.

10. Petition dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1994 Same Parties Digvijay Singh vs Tehsildar Tehsil Nagina, District, Bijnor a... Same Subject Trusts and Societies Same Judge Ravi S. Dhawan and ;G.S.N. Tripathi, JJ. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226; Uttar Pradesh Co-operati...

Trusts and Societies