AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner seeks the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records in the Election Notification
dated 15-9-97 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to conduct the Election as per Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, and pass
such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and render justice.
In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is said that the Petitioner is a member of UCO Bank Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society
Limited - X-412, his Membership Number being 1946. As per General Body meeting held on 20-2-1993, the Society was converted into a multi-
state Co-operative Society. The Central Registrar has issued a Certificate of Registration dated 9-3-1994 that the society in question is a multi-
state Cooperative Society. The reason for filing this writ petition is that the third Respondent has sent a notice to all the members of the society that
the election would be held on 30-9-1997. It is said that the election is not in accordance with law and, therefore, Petitioner and other members
made oral representations before the first Respondent, and, on their request, the election was postponed without mentioning any date. It is said that
the place where the election is proposed to be held is congested and narrow, and it is not a place where the election could be conducted in a
disciplined manner. It is further said that the President of the Society has nominated one Gunasekaran as the Election Officer, who is the General
Secretary of All India Bank Officers Association, Tamil Nadu Unit and also President of the All India Bank Employees - Tamil Nadu Unit. Both
Organisations are twin-banner organizations and they are interested persons in the Welfare of the said Association, and if the Election Officer is
allowed to conduct the election, there will not be a fair election, and the Society of which the Petitioner is a member will be put to great loss and
hardship. It is further stated that as per Section 35(1) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, the superintendence, direction and control of
the preparation of the electoral rolls for and the conduct of elections of the members of the board of such Multi-State Co-operative Society as the
Central Government may, by general or special order, notify, shall be vested in such returning officers as may be appointed by the Central
Registrar in this behalf. In this case, the President has appointed the returning officers. Therefore, the third Respondent has no authority to conduct
the election. It violates the Statute. It is further said that as per Section 35 of the Act, atleast 14 days notice of the general meeting for conducting
the election shall be given to all the members of the Multi-State Co-operative Society. Such procedure has also been violated in this case. It is said
that the appointment of a returning officer should have been at least 60 days in advance of the date of election. That provision is also not complied
with. The strength of the Association comes to more than 1000 and usually the time allowed is seven hours. Presently it has been reduced to four
hours. That also will show that sufficient time was not given to the Members to exercise their franchise, which is also illegal. For these reasons, the
writ Petitioner sought the issuance of writ of mandamus as stated above.
When the Writ Petition came for admission, I ordered notice of motion. As regards stay petition, I ordered that the voting will go on, but the
result will not be published till further orders of Court.
After receipt of notice, second Respondent Special Officer (Election) filed a counter-affidavit, along with a WMP for vacating the interim Order.
One of the main reasons for seeking dismissal of the writ petition is that once the election process has already begun, the Court will not normally
interfere with that process. The aggrieved person has to wait till the results of the election are declared. Thereafter the Petitioner has to move the
proper Authority to have the election set aside. It is the further case of the Respondents that there is no necessity for appointment of an Election
Officer by the Central Registrar as alleged in the writ petition since the Society in question is not a notified Society u/s 35(1) of the Multi-State Co-
operative Societies Act.
Elections to the Board of Management of Multi-State Co-operative Societies are governed by Section 35 of the Act read with Rule 27 of the
Multi-State Co-operative Societies (Registration, Membership, Direction & Management, Settlement of Disputes, Appeal and Revision) Rules,
1985 and the Schedule appended to the Rules. Rule 8 provides for the mode of election of members of the Board of Multi-State Co-operative
Societies other than those referred in certain paragraphs of that Rule. As per that Rule, the Central Registrar''s direction is not necessary, and,
regarding the appointment of an Election Officer, it is said that the President/Chairman or the Vice-President/Vice-Chairman, if they are not
candidates seeking election to the Board, they shall preside over the meeting, and in cases where they are seeking election to the Board, the
general body shall elect a member who is not a candidate seeking election to the Board, as the Chairman of the meeting for the conduct of
elections. In this case it was on the basis of such a Rule, the general-body meeting was convened, and the Election Officer was appointed. There is
no irregularity or illegality committed by the Respondents. It is further said that the general body meeting was held on 23-8-1997, and it was at that
meeting, the General Body elected the second Respondent as Chairman/Election Officer for the conduct of elections. The Board has already given
election notice of an extra-ordinary General Body meeting as early as on 16-7-1997. The last date for filing of nominations was fixed on 23-8-
1997 at 3-30 p.m. The scrutiny was also to take place on the same day, and the last date for withdrawal of nomination was 3-00 p.m. on 26-8-
1997 and the publication of final list of nominations was 4-00 p.m. on 26-8-1997, and the date, place and time of election was fixed as 10-00
A.M. to 5-00 P.M. on 30-8-1997 at the Society premises. There were 11 members on the Board of Directors. The final list contained 26 names
and, therefore, polling became necessary. When the polling was going on, including the Petitioner herein, seven members came and created
pandemonium and, therefore, it was not possible to conduct the election. Considering the seriousness of the situation, the election was postponed,
and the same was fixed for 27-9-1997. Since the Petitioner had objected to the election on the ground that the place was very small, The Election
Officer fixed a larger place at the same building in the 6th floor, which is in Lecture Hall. This place was adequate for the conduct of the election.
The allegation regarding the time for election is also without any basis. Time was fixed from 12-30 P.M. to 4-30 P.M. and that was sufficient. In
fact, even by 3-30 P.M., 273 members had already exercised their franchise. The Respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
I heard learned Counsel on both sides.
In a recent decision reported in 1997 Writ L.R. 558 (Thanaraja, M.S.D. and 2 Ors. v. Executive Officer, Cantonment, St. Thomas Mount), C.
Shivappa, J. has considered about the propriety of moving the High Court when the election proccess is initiated. Learned Judge has said that once
the process has already begun, it is not proper to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution and interdict or retard the election process. In paras 25 to
29 of the judgment, Learned Judge has considered the entire Law on the point, with which I also express my agreement. That itself is sufficient to
dismiss the writ petition. These paragraphs read thus: ""There are string of the decisions of various High Courts and that of the Apex Court to the
effect that once the election process has started, the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 would not be justified in interdicting or
retarding the election process. In Boddula Krishnaiah and another Vs. State Election Commissioner, A.P. and others, it was held that once an
election process has been set in motion, they are free to seek remedy by way of an election petition as provided in the Act and the Rules. In Shri
Savio O. Fernandes and another Vs. State Election Commissioner and others, following AIR 1985 SC 1233 in para 39 it has been held that
order, interim or otherwise, having tendency to or effect of postponing election which is reasonably imminent should not be passed. In Jagadish
Patil Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, , it was held that election once started cannot be stopped, unless the law itself in express terms
authorises such an officer on any of the circumstances mentioned in such a law itself to stop. In Sewa Sahakari Sanstha Mahagarh and Others Vs.
Ramchandra Narayan Kokil and Others, it was held that election process once started should be allowed to continue without any restriction. In
Ramachandra Ganpat Shinde and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, it has been observed as follows:
Once the election process was set in motion according of law any illegality or Irregularity committed while the election process is in progress or the
conduct of the election is vitiated by any illegality or irregularity in its process, the proper remedy is to lay the action before the Tribunal constituted
under that Act by means of an election petition and have the dispute adjudicated without the election process being interdicted or retarded in its
midway. The High Court or this Court while exercising the constituent plenary power under Article 226 or 32 or under 136, as the case may be,
would decline to interfere with the election process and relegate the parties to take recourse to the alternative remedy of the election petition
provided under the statute.
In Bhogendra Jha Vs. Manoj Kumar Jha, , it has been held that opportunity when once provided to raise objection, if no objection raised at the
time of scrutiny and subsequent objection, if any, will be a matter to urge in an election petition and cannot be a criterion to intercept the process
which will have the effect of postponing the election.
In S.T. Muthusami Vs. K. Natarajan and Others, when the question whether it is appropriate for the High Court to interfere with the election;
process at an intermediate stage after the commencement of the election process and before the declaration of the result of the election came up
for consideration, the Supreme Court held that at intermediate stage interference with the process of election will impede the process and the High
Court should decline to exercise that power and leave the parties to remedy of an election petition to be presented after the election was over.
Similarly, in W.P. Nos. 1836 and 1837 of 1992 decided on 12-2-1992 following N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency and Others, and S.T. Muthusami Vs. K. Natarajan and Others, this Court has taken the view that persons aggrieved by any order
resulting in non-participation in election process can, if he so advised, resort to an effective alternative remedy contemplated to resolve the dispute
by way of an election petition.
In Lakshminarain, C. v. The Chief Election Commissioner and three Ors. 1996 Writ L.R. 709 this Court has taken the view that even if the
allegations of irregularity in the electoral rolls are assumed to be true, this Court would not be justified in interfering or interdicting the election
process which has commenced much earlier even though there was irregularity in the preparation of electoral rolls. But the Rule 47 even
contemplates illegalities. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that this Court may invoke the jurisdiction to set aside the order rejecting the
nomination.
The preponderance of judicial opinion and the view of the Supreme Court as expressed in various pronouncements point to the principle regarding
challenge to the election or any intermediary stage in case there is an alternative effective and independent mechanism provided the Court shall
abstain to interfere except on jurisdictional errors, when infirmity is based on violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with
Rule of Natural Justice and perversity. This is not one such case, where it can be termed that there is non-compliance with the Rules, no
opportunity to the Petitioners and the rejection is an act of perversity meaning thereby without any application of mind.
Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that he is questioning the jurisdiction for continuing the election, and when the same is not in
accordance with Act, he is entitled to question the same.
I feel that this question also could be decided after the results of the election are declared, and this also could be taken as a ground in the
Election Dispute that might be raised by the Petitioner. Even on merits, Petitioner has no case. Section 35 of the Multi-State Co-operative
Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter called ''the Act'') reads thus:
The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of elections of the members of the board
of such Multi-State Co-operative Society or class of Multi-State Co-operative Society as the Central Government may, by general or special
order, notify, shall be vested in such returning officers as may be appointed by the Central Registrar in this behalf.
The vote at such elections shall be by secret ballot.
The term of office of the elected members of the board shall be such not exceeding three years from the date of election, as may be specified in
the bye-laws of a Multi-State Co-operative Society:
Provided that the elected members shall continue to hold office till their successors are elected or nominated under the provisions of this Act or the
Rules or the bye-laws and assume the charge of their office.
No person shall be eligible to be elected as a member of the board of Multi-State Co-operative Society unless he is a member of the general
body of that society.
The Central Government may make rules generally to provide for or to regulate matters in respect of elections of members of the board.
(Emphasis supplied)
Learned Counsel for Petitioner relied on the wordings of the Section for which I have given emphasis. According to the Respondents, the Society
in question, viz., UCO Bank Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society, is not a notified Society and, therefore, the argument of learned Counsel for
Petitioner is not correct. Section 4(2) of the Act reads thus:
The Central Government may, by notification, direct that any power exercisable by the Central Registrar under this Art (other than the power of
registration of a Multi-State Co-operative Society) shall in relation to such society, and such matters as may be specified in the notification be
exercisable also by any other officer of the Central Government or of a State Government as may be authorised by the Central Government
subject to such conditions as may be specified therein: (Provisos omitted as not necessary)
So, it is clear that any power exercised by the Central Registrar under the Act has to be notified by the Central Government in relation to such
Society. Respondents submitted that the Society in question is not one that is notified by the Central Government and, therefore, there is no
necessity for the Central Registrar to appoint an Election Officer or any other Officer for holding election. Rule 27 was also brought to my notice in
this regard. The same reads thus:
Procedure for conduct of elections: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, and without prejudice to the generality of the powers of
the Central Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 35, the election of the members of the Board of Directors of the National Co-operative
Society specified in the Second schedule to the Act and such other Multi-State Co-operative Society or class of Multi-State Co-operative
Societies as the Central Government may, by general or special order, notify, shall be conducted by such returning officer or officers as may be
appointed by the Central Registrar in this behalf. The election in such societies shall be conducted in the manner specified in schedule.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (1) where a requisition to appoint a returning officer to conduct an election is received from not
less than 1/5th of the total number of members eligible to vote in a Multi-State Co-operative Society sixty days in advance of the date for election,
the Central Registrar shall appoint a returning officer to conduct election in the manner specified in the schedule.
It also makes it clear that unless there is a general or special order notifying that Society, it is not the Central Registrar who has to appoint an
Election Officer. With regard to other Societies, Rule 8 of the procedure regarding the conduct of Elections will apply. - (See the Schedule). The
said Rule reads thus:
Rule 8, Mode of election of members of the board of Multi-State Co-operative Societies other than those referred in paragraph.... (1) The election
of the members of a Multi-State Co-operative Society not falling under paragraph 1 shall be by show of hands.
(2) The election shall be held at a general meeting of the Multi-State Co-operative Society convened for the purpose, of which not less than 14
clear days notice shall be given to the members. The notice of the general meeting shall be sent to the members by any of the modes specified in
subparagraph (f) of paragraph 2 and shall contain information regarding:
(a) the number of vacancies to be filled by election;
(b) the area or the constituency, if any, from which members of the board are to be elected; and
(c) the date on which, the place and the hours at which elections will take place.
(3) the board of directors or the administrator or administrators appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 48, as the case may be, shall prepare
a list of individual members and delegates of member-societies as it stood on the date, 30 days prior to date on which elections are to take place
and affix a copy thereof to the notice board of the society not less than 15 days prior to the date fixed for the election. A copy of the said list shall
be supplied by the society to any member on payment of such fees as may be specified by the board, or the administrator, as the case may be.
Where no fees has been specified, the President/Chairman of the society, or the administrator shall supply such list on payment of Rs. 2.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Schedule, the President/Chairman or the Vice President/Vice-Chairman if they are not candidates
seeking election to the board, shall preside over the meeting. In case they are seeking election to the board, the general body shall elect a member
who is not a candidate seeking election to the board, as the Chairman of the meeting for the conduct of elections.
Provided that in respect of a society falling under this rule for which an administrator has been appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 48, the
administrator shall be the Chairman of the meeting.
(5) The nomination of the candidates for election shall be made at the meeting. The Chairman of the meeting shall decide the objections, if any,
which may be made at the time to any nomination after making such summary enquiry as he thinks necessary and announce the names of
candidates as per valid nominations.
(6) If for any area or constituency for which election is to be held the number of candidates in respect of whom valid nominations have been
announced does not exceed the number of candidates to be elected for that area or constituency, the candidates for whom valid nominations have
been announced shall be deemed to have been elected for that area or constituency, as the case may be, and the Chairman of the meeting shall
make a declaration to that effect. If the number of candidates in respect of whom valid nominations have been announced for any area or
constituency exceeds the number of candidates to be elected, a poll shall be taken and the Chairman shall then read out the names of the contesting
candidates. He shall thereafter record the number of votes polled for and against each such candidate, ascertained either by show of hands or by
ballot, as the case may be, and record the same in the minutes book of the society. The Chairman shall announce the number of votes polled by
each candidate and the result of the elections which shall also be recorded in the minutes book of the society and attested by him.
(7) Where secret ballot is demanded by the members of the general body a formal resolution to this effect will be put to vote and adopted. The
meeting shall adjourn for a brief period to enable the Chairman to make arrangements for the secret ballot.
(8) After counting, the general body shall again assemble where the results of the poll shall be announced as in Clause (6) of paragraph 8.
(9) Elections of the boards of societies which has to be conducted by returning officer on requisition from the members. Notwithstanding anything
in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8, where a requisition to appoint a returning officer to conduct an election is received from not less than one-
fourth of the total number of members on the rolls and eligible to vote in a Multi-State Co-operative Society, sixty days in advance, the Central
Registrar, shall appoint a returning officer to conduct election in the manner specified in paragraphs 2 to 7.
On a reading of the above Rule, I do not think the procedure adopted by the Respondents is in any way inconsistent with the procedure or
procedures of the Rules.
This Writ Petition was filed on 25-9-1997. Long before that date, a general body meeting was held on 23-8-1997 in which second
Respondent herein was elected as the Chairman and Election Officer for conduct of the election. The last date for filing of nominations was fixed as
23-8-1997 at 3-30 P.M., including scrutiny of nominations. Last date for withdrawal was fixed as 26-8-1997 at 3-00P.M., and the polling must
be held on 30-8-1997. In fact, polling was held on 30-8-1997, and, it is the case of the Respondents that because the Petitioner himself created
pandemonium at the polling station, the Election Officer was not in a position to proceed with the election, and to his knowledge, the election was
postponed to 27-9-1997, and same was also notified on 16-9-1997. Petitioner was also a party to all these activities, and his complaint regarding
the sufficiency of space of the polling booth was taken into consideration and the venue was shifted to a larger portion of that building, namely, to
the Lecture Hall. It is after the election notice dated 15-10-1997, informing the adjourned date of the polling, Petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Before that date, second Respondent has taken all steps for the conduct of a smooth poll, and the Petitioner is also aware of all these proceedings.
I feel that the argument of learned Counsel for Respondents has to be accepted, and this writ petition has been filed only to see that the election is
not conducted in time. I am of the view that the writ petition has been filed without any bona fides. On both those grounds, namely, both on merits
and also on the ground of maintainability, I dismiss the Writ Petition with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred).
Consequently, the connected W.M. Ps. are also dismissed.