High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 02 RAJ CK 0095

Jagjeet Singh And Others vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 28 February 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dinesh Mehta, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3184 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 311 words

Dinesh Mehta, J

1.

By way of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the notice dated 23.02.2023, issued by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bikaner Division, Bikaner on the ground that the proceedings under section 58(2)(c) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) are premature and void as the same can be taken up only after conclusion of the election.

2.

The petitioner Munsaf Ali, present in person submitted that on 13.02.2023, 11 Directors have been elected while one seat remained vacant on account of rejection of nomination paper of respondent No.4, but the office bearers of the society have not yet been elected.

3.

The petitioner argued that since the election of office bearers is underway, it cannot be said that the election process is over and hence, the proceeding under section 58 (2)(c) of the Act of 2001 is without jurisdiction.

4.

Heard the petitioner.

5.

In the opinion of this Court, apart from the fact that the writ petition is premature, the premise on which the petitioners have approached is absolutely misconceived.

6.

When the respondent No.4 has challenged the very rejection of nomination paper on the post of Director, she can well lay challenge to such rejection because, so far as election of Members of the Board/Directors is concerned, the same is over.

7.

The election of office bearers such as President, Vice-President, Secretary, etc. is a subsequent process and, therefore, her action cannot be said to be premature.

8.

As a matter of fact, instant writ petition challenging the very proceedings is premature, as the respondent No.3 is yet to pass any order pursuant to case filed by respondent No.4.

9.

This Court does not find any merit and substance in petitioners’ writ petition, for which, it is hereby dismissed.

10.

Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.