Ramswaroop Dohare and anr. Vs. Ayukt Sahkarith Avam Panjiyak Sahkari Sanstha, M.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - ' 3. the law is well settled that once the election process commences, it should be completed to its logical end. this being, so, the returning officer, even assuming that he was duly appointed had clearly no power to adjourn the meeting or to stay the elections. 3.'6. thus, the order, annexure p/2, by which election process was brought to halt is held to be bad.ordert.s. doabia, j.1. the election process started with a view to establish managing committee of respondent no. 1, sanstha, is sought to be brought to a halt by passing an order, copy of which is annexure p/2. election programme was issued on 30th of august, 1995. the nominations were to filed on 28th of september, 1995. these forms were scrutinised on 29th of september, 1995. 30th of september, 1995, was the date fixed for withdrawal of nominations. the symbols were allotted. thereafter, the elections were to be held on 6th of october, 1995. however, by issuance of annexure p/2, the election-process, as noticed above, has been brought to a grinding halt.2. the only contention raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioners is that once the election programme 'has been pronounced, it should be allowed to be completed. the counsel placed reliance on a decision given in rajendra shukla v. a. b. qureshi, assistant registrar, co-operative societies, bilaspur, 1985 jab lj 370. para 6 is relevant, it reads as under:'it is not in dispute that the election programme was announced and it is also not disputed that this dispute was entertained at a stage which was before the elections were held as the elections were scheduled to be held on 30-10-1984, whereas the interlocutory order passed by respondent no. 1 admittedly is of 29-10-1984. it is, therefore, apparent that respondent no. 1 entertained the dispute under section 64(2) of the act in direct contravention of the provisions contained in the proviso to section 64(2) quoted above. in this view of the matter, therefore, this interlocutory order and all other proceedings which may have taken place before the respondent no. 1 in this dispute are apparently contrary to law and, therefore, deserve to be quashed. it is also regrettable that respondent no. 1 entertained a dispute when the person who raised the dispute was his own son.'3. the law is well settled that once the election process commences, it should be completed to its logical end. in this regard, it would be apt to refer to anand prakash v. assistant registrar, co-operative societies, air 1968 all 22; wherein it was held that no interim directions can be given. para 18 is relevant it reads as under:'an arbitrator acting under the co-operative societies act has no inherent, implied or incidental or consequential power in the exercise of which he can pass an order of stay or in the nature of an injunction. such an order is ultra vires powers and in the eye of law null and void.'4. see also in jagadish patil v. the state of karnataka, air 1979 kant 4, it was held that election process once started cannot be stopped. it was said that 'it is a settled law that elections to any office cannot be normally postponed unless the law itself in express terms authorises such an officer on any of the circumstances mentioned in such a law itself.'5. the observations made by hon. shri j. s. verma, j. (now judge of supreme court of india) in sewa sahakari sanstha mahagarh v. ramchandra narayan kokil, air 1974 mp 164 are clear pointer that election process once started should be allowed to continue without any restriction. in para 7 it was said:'..... this being, so, the returning officer, even assuming that he was duly appointed had clearly no power to adjourn the meeting or to stay the elections. for this reason, the returning officer having also decided to leave the meeting even though the same was continued, his absence has not been shown to vitiate the elections for contravention of any provision of law.'it was further said:'before parting with this case, we areconstrained to observe that this case revealshow unscrupulous and power hungry personoccupying the office of the president of thesociety can set at naught the democraticprocess envisaged by the provisions of lawproviding for the management of such societies, if he is not checked by the authoritiesconferred with the powers of superintendence. it is to ensure against such apossibility that considerable powers ofsuperintendence have been given to theregistrar, co-operative societies and hisassistants. however, we are amazed to findthat the authorities concerned in this parti-cular case were wholly oblivious to such aduty enjoined upon them, with the result thatrespondent no. 3.' 6. thus, the order, annexure p/2, by which election process was brought to halt is held to be bad. let further steps be now taken.

Judgment:
ORDER

T.S. Doabia, J.

1. The election process started with a view to establish Managing Committee of respondent No. 1, sanstha, is sought to be brought to a halt by passing an order, copy of which is Annexure P/2. Election programme was issued on 30th of August, 1995. The nominations were to filed on 28th of September, 1995. These forms were scrutinised on 29th of September, 1995. 30th of September, 1995, was the date fixed for withdrawal of nominations. The symbols were allotted. Thereafter, the elections were to be held on 6th of October, 1995. However, by issuance of Annexure P/2, the election-process, as noticed above, has been brought to a grinding halt.

2. The only contention raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioners is that once the election programme 'has been pronounced, it should be allowed to be completed. The counsel placed reliance on a decision given in Rajendra Shukla v. A. B. Qureshi, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bilaspur, 1985 Jab LJ 370. Para 6 is relevant, it reads as under:

'It is not in dispute that the election programme was announced and it is also not disputed that this dispute was entertained at a stage which was before the elections were held as the elections were scheduled to be held on 30-10-1984, whereas the interlocutory order passed by respondent No. 1 admittedly is of 29-10-1984. It is, therefore, apparent that respondent No. 1 entertained the dispute under Section 64(2) of the Act in direct contravention of the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 64(2) quoted above. In this view of the matter, therefore, this interlocutory order and all other proceedings which may have taken place before the respondent No. 1 in this dispute are apparently contrary to law and, therefore, deserve to be quashed. It is also regrettable that respondent No. 1 entertained a dispute when the person who raised the dispute was his own son.'

3. The law is well settled that once the election process commences, it should be completed to its logical end. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to Anand Prakash v. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, AIR 1968 All 22; wherein it was held that no interim directions can be given. Para 18 is relevant it reads as under:

'An arbitrator acting under the Co-operative Societies Act has no inherent, implied or incidental or consequential power in the exercise of which he can pass an order of stay or in the nature of an injunction. Such an order is ultra vires powers and in the eye of law null and void.'

4. See also in Jagadish Patil v. The State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 Kant 4, it was held that election process once started cannot be stopped. It was said that 'it is a settled law that elections to any office cannot be normally postponed unless the law itself in express terms authorises such an officer on any of the circumstances mentioned in such a law itself.'

5. The observations made by Hon. Shri J. S. Verma, J. (now Judge of Supreme Court of India) in Sewa Sahakari Sanstha Mahagarh v. Ramchandra Narayan Kokil, AIR 1974 MP 164 are clear pointer that election process once started should be allowed to continue without any restriction. In para 7 it was said:

'..... This being, so, the Returning Officer, even assuming that he was duly appointed had clearly no power to adjourn the meeting or to stay the elections. For this reason, the Returning Officer having also decided to leave the meeting even though the same was continued, his absence has not been shown to vitiate the elections for contravention of any provision of law.'

It was further said:

'Before parting with this case, we areconstrained to observe that this case revealshow unscrupulous and power hungry personoccupying the office of the President of theSociety can set at naught the democraticprocess envisaged by the provisions of lawproviding for the management of such societies, if he is not checked by the authoritiesconferred with the powers of superintendence. It is to ensure against such apossibility that considerable powers ofsuperintendence have been given to theRegistrar, Co-operative Societies and hisassistants. However, we are amazed to findthat the authorities concerned in this parti-cular case were wholly oblivious to such aduty enjoined upon them, with the result thatrespondent No. 3.'

6. Thus, the order, Annexure P/2, by which election process was brought to halt is held to be bad. Let further steps be now taken.