Raj Narayan Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1041866
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-13-2013
AppellantRaj Narayan Sharma
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
writ petition no.3860/2013 13.3.2013 shri l.s.singh, learned senior counsel with shri lav kush mishra, counsel for the petitioner. shri yogesh dhande, learned government advocate for the state. heard on admission. by this petition, the petitioner has challenged the election process of samiti prabandhak seva sahakari samiti maryadit, navasta, district rewa. the petitioner is one of the candidates for the election of members of the board of directors.according to the petitioner although earlier the nomination forms of only 11 candidates were found to be valid, later, the nomination forms of respondent nos.6 to 8 were also illegally held to be valid. the petitioner submits that if the nomination forms of respondent nos.6 to 8 had not been illegally accepted he would have been declared elected. section 64 of the madhya pradesh cooperative societies act, 1960 (in short “the act”.) entitles any party to raise a dispute in connection with the election of any officer of the society or representative of the society or of composite society. this is also apparent from clause v of sub-section (2) of section 64 of the act. in harneek singh versus charanjit singh (2005) 8 scc 38.the supreme court has held that if a remedy of election petition is available, writ petition under article 226 is not maintainable. the petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. judge ss
Judgment:

Writ Petition No.3860/2013 13.3.2013 Shri L.S.Singh, learned Senior counsel with Shri Lav Kush Mishra, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Government Advocate for the State.

Heard on admission.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the election process of Samiti Prabandhak Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Navasta, District Rewa.

The petitioner is one of the candidates for the election of Members of the Board of DirectORS.According to the petitioner although earlier the nomination forms of only 11 candidates were found to be valid, later, the nomination forms of respondent Nos.6 to 8 were also illegally held to be valid.

The petitioner submits that if the nomination forms of respondent Nos.6 to 8 had not been illegally accepted he would have been declared elected.

Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (in short “the Act”.) entitles any party to raise a dispute in connection with the election of any officer of the Society or representative of the Society or of Composite Society.

This is also apparent from Clause V of sub-section (2) of section 64 of the Act.

In Harneek Singh versus Charanjit Singh (2005) 8 SCC 38.the Supreme Court has held that if a remedy of election petition is available, writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable.

The petition is accordingly dismissed summarily.

JUDGE ss