Jaipal Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard Mr. A.V. Pundir, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. K.C. Tiwari, learned Brief Holder on behalf of Respondent/State.

By means of this petition the Petitioner, has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11-6-2010, whereby the approval has been granted to Respondent No. 5 by Respondent No. 4, i.e. District Education Officer.

According to the Petitioner no notice was made for conducting the election and no election was conducted by Respondent No. 4.

However, the Petitioner has an alternative remedy to raise his grievance before the prescribed authority pertaining to disputes regarding election of office-bearers as per provision of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The relevant portion of above provision is quoted below-

Disputes regarding election of office-bearers- (1) The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit:

Provided that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied-

(a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office-bearer; or

(b) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected; or

(c) that the result of the election in so far it concerns such office-bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the society.''

Therefore, on the ground of alternative remedy available with the Petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.