Shyam Datt Joshi vs State of Uttarakhand and others

K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (ORAL)

The Application for exemption (CLMA No. 10511 of 2018) from filing the certified copy of the impugned judgment is allowed.

Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed seeking the following relies:

“a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the rejection list dated 16-7-2018 issued by Election officer Herbertpur

Bahudeshi Kisan Sewa Sahkari Sammiti Ltd. Herbertpur, Tehsil Vikasnagar, District Dehradun qua the petitioner.

b) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the election of the

Committee of Management of Herpertpur Bahudeshiya Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Herbertpur Tehsil Vikasnagar District Dehradun for the post

of Sanchalak.â€​

By the impugned order dated 16.07.2018, the nomination of the petitioner for participating in the election of the Committee of Management of the

Cooperative Society known as Herbertpur Bahudshi Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti came to be rejected by the Election Officer. The ground for rejection

appears to be that the signature is not on the appropriate place.

We heard Mr. Siddharth Sah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand /

respondent nos. 1 & 2.

The impugned judgment as such is not before us, by which, we are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the writ petition has been

dismissed. We do not know, what persuaded the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for

the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the matter will become infructuous, and the Court may pass order on the petition.

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel would submit that the petitioner has a remedy under Rule 457 of the Uttarakhand Cooperative

Societies Rules 2004 and this is the specific ground. It is also pointed out that the ground, namely, rejection of nomination is a ground for setting aside

the election. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the ground for rejection of nomination is that the signature is not there at

the proper place; whereas he points out that the signature is there. Apart from the fact that the election can be challenged by way of election petition,

we notice that the election is to be held on 22.07.2018. Even if we may be inclined to grant the relief, we would think, it may not be possible for us to

do so within the short time which is available. We notice in this regard that the election process has attained an advance stage and it is to culminate on

22.07.2018. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and the Appeal will stand dismissed. This will be without prejudice

to all the rights available to the appellant in law.