AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Tiwari for the petitioner, Sri Vipin Pandey for respondent No. 4 and learned standing Counsel.
It appears that a dispute had arisen between the parties with regard the voter list issued from the office of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Mandal, Azamgarh, which was decided vide order dated 9.1.2007 u/s 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Thereafter, the voter list was sent to respondent No. 3-Election officer/District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, who issued the list of members of the general body on 7.3.2007 for holding the elections of the committee of management on 8.3.2007. The date of elections was thereafter postponed for certain reasons.
It also appears that thereafter the petitioner has sent a list of the members from which he claims that elections should be held as, according to the petitioner, there is some variation in the parentage and address of members and one of them is said to have died in the meantime.
The Assistant Registrar-respondent No. 2 has informed by his letter dated 7.9.2007 that the list of the petitioner will be considered after the elections. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4877 of 2007, which was disposed of by order dated 23.10.2007 directing the respondent No. 2 to dispose of the matter relating to approval of the list of membership within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order.
It was in pursuance of the order of the Court dated 23.10.2007 that the respondent No. 2 has decided the matter and recommended for holding fresh elections by order dated 28.1.2008. It further appears that the petitioner again came up in the Writ Petition No. 10319 of 2008 for stalling the elections, in which the following order was passed on 29.2.2008:
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks time for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List immediately thereafter.
Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 states that the election programme for holding election has already been notified on 8th March, 2007, hence it is directed that the election be held by the respondents within a period of three weeks from today. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the elections, he may file a suit before the civil court.
Against the order dated 29.2.2008 quoted above, the petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 403 of 2008 which was dismissed by a Division Bench vide order dated 17.3.2008 alongwith the writ petition. Consequently, the Election Officer/District Basic Education Officer, has declared the date of election of the committee of management on 10.4.2008 vide notice dated 19.3.2008 alongwith list of members of the general body issued by respondent No. 2 finalised pursuant to the order of the Court.
The petitioner has again come up in this writ petition on the ground that there is variation in the address of three members and one member has already died as stated earlier. He has placed reliance upon Annexure-6 wherein specific objection/allegation, in respect of such members is given as under:
3- ;g fd 8 ekpZ] 2007 ds le; pquko lEcfU/kr tkjh lwph esa lhfj;y ua0 6 vafdr Jh ikjl ukFk flag xzke pM+ok] iks0 dkthiqj] ftyk cfy;k gSA nwljh lwph tks fnukad 10-4-2008 ds fy, tkjh dh x;h gS A bl lwph esa ikjl ukFk flag lhfj;y ua0 5 ij vafdr gS A ftuds firk dk uke Jhifr flag xzke pM+oksa iks0 cjoka] ftyk cfy;k vafdr gS A tks igyh lwph esa fnukad 7-3-2007 dks tkjh dh x;h Fkh mlds irs ls fcYdqy fHkUu gS A bles tkylkth fd;k x;k gS A tks ekU; djus ;ksX; ugh gS A tcfd ikjl ukFk flag xzke pM+oks] iks0 dkthiqj] ftyk cfy;k dk gS A tks ej pqds gS A
4- ;g fd jktsUnz izlkn xqIrk firk dk uke xkSjh izlkn xqIrk xzke o iks0 psru fd''kksj ftyk cfy;k gS tks izcU/k lfefr dk lnL; gS A tks igyh lwph fnukad 7-2-2007 dks tkjh gqbZ gS tks lhfj;y ua0 10 ij gS A tks fo|ky; ds lnL; gS A blds LFkku ij nwljh lwph fnukad 10&4&2008 dks tkjh dh x;h gS A mlesa jktsUnz izlkn xqIrk ds firk dk uke Lo0 xksiky lkgw prqj laBh fd''kksj] iks0 osru fd''kksj] ftyk cfy;k n''kkZ;k x;k gS tks QthZ rjhds ls fd;k x;k gS A tks ekU; djus ;ksX; ugh gS A D;ksfd psru fd''kksj ,d vyx xzke lHkk gS tks bl psru fd''kksj ds jktsUnz xqIrk firk dk uke xkSjh izlkn xqIrk tks psru fd''kksj xzke lHkk ds fuoklh gS tks fo|ky; ds lfefr ds okLrfod lnL; gS vkSj lwph ua0 2 ij jktsUnz izlkn Lo0 xksiky lkgw fn;k x;k gS A tks prqj laBh fd''kksj dk jgus okyk gS A ftudk xzke lHkk pd[kku gS A ;g QthZ rjhds ls budks lnL; ekuk x;k gS A tks ekuus ;ksX; ugh gS A
;g fd fnukad 7-3-2007 ds tkjh lwph esa fojsUnz dqekj ik.Ms; firk dk uke& jke''kh''k ik.Ms; xzke o iks0 fldUnjiqj] eq0 Mkeuiqjk] ftyk cfy;k m0iz0 gS tks izcU/k lfefr ds igys ls okLrfod lnL; gS A fnukad 10-4-2008 dks tks lwph tkjh gqbZ gS mlh lwph dze la0 10 ij fojsUnz dqekj ik.Ms; iq0 Jh jsorh je.k ik.Ms; xzke pd[kku] fldUnjiqj] iks0 psru fd''kksj fn[kk;k x;k gS A tks QthZ gS tks fnukad 7-3-2007 dh lwph ls fHkUu gS A tks ekuus ;ksX; ugh gSA
5- ;g fd fnukad 7-3-2007 dks tkjh lwph esa uUns yky Hkkjrh firk dk uke Jh '';ke yky Hkkjrh xzke o iks0 ckyiqj ftyk cfy;k fy[kk gS vkSj tks fnukad 10-4-2008 dh tkjh gqbZ gS A mles uUn yky firk dk uke Lo0 ijes''oj xzke dlekiqj] iks0 ckyiqj ftyk cfy;k fy[kk gS A tks fnukad 7-2-2007 dh lwph ls fHkUu gS A tks ekU; djus ;ksX; ugh gS A tks uUns yky Hkkjrh; iq0 Jh '';ke yky Hkkjrh xzke dlekiqj iks0 ckywiqj ftyk cfy;k gS tks fo|ky; dk cgqr igys ls lnL; gS A
6- ;g fd fnukad 7-3-2007 ds tkjh lwph esa dze la[;k 17 ij Jh HkwisUnz cgknqj flag xzke o iks0 egqykuikj] ftyk cfy;k fn;k x;k gS A tcfd fnukad 10-4-2008 ds tkjh lwph dze la0 16 Hkh HkwisUnz cgknqj flag iq0 Lo0 rst cgknqj flag xzke eqMs+jk] iks0 egykuikj] ftyk cfy;k fn;k x;k gS A ;g irk fnukad 7-3-2007 dh lwph ls fcYdqy fHkUu gS A tks blesa Hkh QthZ fd;k x;k gS] tks drbZ ekuus ;ksX; ugh gS A
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the information of the election programme which was notified vide notice dated 19.3.2008, the petitioner compared the list dated 7.3.2007 issued by the election officer and list issued from the office of the respondent No. 2 alongwith the election programme there is a major contradiction about serial Nos. 5, 9, 10, 15 and 16 of the list issued for holding election on 10.4.2008 with the list dated 7.3.2007 in serial Nos. 6, 10. 11. 16 and 17 in which father''s name and address is quite different related to different villages so petitioner submitted his representation dated 31.3.2008 which was received from the office of the respondent.
Admittedly, the election programme has been published in the newspapers informing all the members of the committee of management about the schedule of election. Even if there is some discrepancy, the members know about the election programme and date of the election. Admittedly also, the Assistant Registrar has ordered that he will hear the matter again on the list submitted by the petitioner after the election is held.
The election is a democratic process and it is well-settled that the election process once initiated should not be interfered. The election officer may verify the aforesaid voters in respect of whose particulars variation is alleged before allowing them to vote. After the election, if there is any infirmity or illegality, the petitioner May challenge the election in a suit.
For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed.