Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief ... on 1 July, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB )
W.P. (C) No. 2485 of 2025
The State of Jharkhand through the Registrar, Co-operative
Society, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Pasupalan
Bhawan, Hesag, P.O. & P.S. Hatia, Dist. Ranchi.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary having its
office at New Secretariat, Bailey Road, P.O. & P.S. New
Secretariat, Dist. Patna.
2. The Additional Secretary, Department of Cooperation,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna having its office at New Secretariat,
Bailey Road, P.O. & P.S. New Secretariat Dist.- Patna.
3. The Union of India through Secretary, Department of
Cooperation, Cooperative Election Authority having its
office at 9th Floor, Tower E, World Trade Centre, Nauroji
Nagar, New Delhi, P.O. + P.S.- New Delhi, Dist.- New Delhi.
4. The District Magistrate (Patna) cum Returning Officer,
BISCOMAUN having its office at 96, Mazharul Haque Path,
Rajapur, Raja Ji Salai, Indira nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Indira
Nagar, Dist. Patna.
5. The Mananging Director, BISCOMAUN, BISCOMAUN
Tower, Gandhi Maidan, P.O. & P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Dist.
Patna.
6. Manoj Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Madan Singh, R/o Vill-
Pratappur, P.O. & P.S.- Hussainganj, Dist.- Siwan, Bihar.
... Respondents
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General.
Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II.
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G.-III.
Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG.
Mr. Karamdeo, AC to AG.
Mr. Vishwanath, AC to AG.
For the UOI : Mr. Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI.
Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, CGC.
For the State of Bihar
& resp. no. 4 : Mr. S.P. Roy, G.A. Bihar
W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 1
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB )
For the Res. No. 5 : Mr. Ashit Kumar, Adv.
For the Res. No. 6 : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Adv.
For the Res. No. 7 : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.
For the Res. No. 8 : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
----
Dated : 01/07/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
I.A. No. 7389 of 2025.
Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the proposed intervenor, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Roy, learned G.A.- Bihar, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI, Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 and Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the newly added respondent no. 7.
This application has been preferred for impleading the proposed intervenor as a party respondent in the main writ application on the ground that the proposed intervenor is the elected Director of Category- A SC/ST quota, as per the voter list of members who would participate and cast their votes in the election of office bearers of BISCOMAUN.
It has been stated that in order to protect his right, the proposed intervenor be made a party respondent and in similar circumstances, one of the members of the Board of Directors has been allowed to intervene in the present writ application in I.A. No. 6374 of 2025 vide order dated 08.05.2025.
On consideration of the aforesaid, we hereby allow this interlocutory application and the proposed intervenor, namely, Maneshwar Pahan is impleaded as party respondent no. 8 in the writ application.
I.A. No. 7389 of 2025 stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 2Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) W.P.(C) No. 2485 of 2025.
1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI, Mr. S.P. Roy, Learned G.A.- Bihar, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the newly added respondent no. 7, Mr. Ashit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5, Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the newly added respondent no. 8.
2. In this writ application, the petitioner has made the following prayers:
(i) For issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash and cancel the letter dated 5.5.2025 (Annexure-8) issued by the Respondent No.
3 whereby and whereunder it has been decided that there cannot be a nominee director of Govt of Jharkhand on the Board of BISCOMAUN in the absence of equity share holding of the State of Jharkhand.
(ii) For issuance of an writ of certiorari to quash and cancel the notification issued by the Respondent No. 2 contained in memo no.
3066 dated 3.4.2025 (Annexure-7) whereby it has been mentioned that the State of Bihar has 99.26% share holding in the BISCOMAUN and the Govt of Jharkhand has no share capital in the BISCOMAUN and as such the Director nominated by the Govt of Jharkhand IS NOT in accordance with Section 48 (1)(c) of Multi-State Cooperative Society Act, 2002.
W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 3Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB )
(iii) For a writ of mandamus command the respondents to allow the nominee Director of the State of Jharkhand to participate in the Election of office bearers in BISCOMAUN to be held on 8 and 9th of May, 2025.
(iv) Be further pleased to stay the operation of the impugned letter dated 5.5.2025 and notification dated 3.4.2025 during the pendency of the present writ application.
(v) For issuance of other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction /directions as may deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The factual aspects of the case reveal that Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited (hereinafter referred to as BISCOMAUN for the sake of brevity), came into existence in the year 1958. The erstwhile State of Bihar had 99.26% shares in BISCOMAUN, and the remaining 0.74% shares were held by the Member, Cooperative Societies. By virtue of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 the successor States were carved out from the erstwhile State of Bihar with effect from 15-11-2000. BISCOMAUN was working within the erstwhile State of Bihar and even after the reorganization of the State, the area of operation of BISCOMAUN continued in both successor States. It has been stated that BISCOMAUN was registered under Section 11 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002) and Certificate of Registration was issued on 01-08-2014 being Registration No. MSCS/CR/1074/2014. It is further mentioned that the area of operation of the society will be confined to the State of Bihar and Jharkhand. The total number of societies with BISCOMAUN is 270, out of which 82 no. of societies are from the different W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) districts of the State of Jharkhand. The Bye-laws of BISCOMAUN was amended in consonance with the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and the amendment was approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Cooperation by virtue of a certificate of registration of amendment issued on 02-02-2024. It has been stated that a perusal of the same would indicate that the area of operation of BISCOMAUN is entrenched in the State of Bihar as well as in the State of Jharkhand. Reference has been made to Rule 27 of the Bye-laws which provides for constitution of the Board of Directors of BISCOMAUN which shall have 21 members, out of which 17 members of the Board shall be elected members and the remaining 4 will be the nominees. One of the nominee shall be the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jharkhand or his nominee. It has further been stated that the petitioner no. 2, vide letter as contained in Memo No. 271(6)/Ranchi dated 06- 02-2025 addressed to the Administrator, BISCOMAUN informed that in terms of Rule 27(VI) of the By-laws of BISCOMAUN, Shri Afren George Kujur, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jharkhand, Ranchi is nominated as a member of the Board of Directors of BISCOMAUN. The respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 21-02-2025 accepted that the nomination made by the State of Jharkhand was within section 48(1)(a) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 as the Government of Jharkhand had equity shares. It has also been accepted that the membership of the Board has attained the strength of 21 comprising of 3 nominations by the State of Bihar, 1 nomination by the State of Jharkhand and 17 elected members. The voter list of the members who would participate and cast their votes in the election of office bearers of BISCOMAUN, was issued vide Memo No. 515 dated 21-02-2025. The name of the nominee of the State of Jharkhand is reflected in Sl. No. 21 of the list of members. The scheduled date of election was 28-02-2025. The election W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) programme was re-scheduled and revised election programme was issued on 04-03-2025 by the respondent no. 03. The State of Bihar, Department of Cooperative Societies, issued a notification as contained in Memo No. 3066 dated 03-04-2025, wherein it has been mentioned that the State of Jharkhand has no share capital in BISCOMAUN. In the letter dated 05-05-2025, mention has been made of the letter dated 22-04-20224, wherein the respondent no. 03 had requested the Returning Officer, BISCOMAUN to seek comments of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government of Jharkhand by giving a 07 days' time period on the Government of Bihar's Notification No. 3066 dated 03-04-2025. It also appears that comments of the Returning Officer, BISCOMAUN were also sought for to determine inclusion/exclusion of representative (nominee director) under Section 48(1)(a) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and Rule 19(N) of the Multi-State Cooperative Society Rules for nomination of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Jharkhand on the Board of BISCOMAUN along with participation to cast votes in the election of office bearers.
4. It has been submitted by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General, while referring to the Certificate of Registration dated 01-08-2014 that the Registration of BISCOMAUN as a Multi-State Cooperative Society confined the area of operation of the society both to the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand. Reference has also been made to the Bye- laws of BISCOMAUN specifically to Clause 27, wherein it has been depicted that the Board of directors shall include a Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand or his nominee. As per Section 48 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 a right accrues to the State Government to nominate authorised member(s) on the Board when the State Government has subscribed to the share capital of a Multi-State Cooperative W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) Society. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate General taking recourse to Section 48 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 that the State of Jharkhand ideally should have two members on the Board as the assets and liabilities are distributed in the ratio 2:1. The communication of the Cooperative Election Authority, Ministry of Cooperation, Government of India in his letter dated 21-02-2025 categorically speaks of one nomination of the Government of Jharkhand of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies as falling within the domain of Section 48(1)(e) of the Cooperative Societies Act,2002 as the equity share value of the State of Jharkhand in the society is valued at approximately Rs. 14.63 lakhs. The said letter would, therefore, indicate that one nominee of the State of Jharkhand in the Board has been recognised and the equity share of the State of Jharkhand has also been recognised. Drawing the attention of the Court to the voters list, learned Advocate General has submitted that the name of the nominated members of the State of Jharkhand figures in the same and the same is also prominently displayed in the revised election programme of the office bearers dated 04-03-2025. It has been submitted that though there was no dispute with respect to the nomination of one member from the State of Jharkhand, but the State of Bihar subsequently did a volte face as by virtue of the notification dated 03-04-25, the State of Jharkhand was concluded not to have a nominated member since the State of Jharkhand did not have any equity share in BISCOMAUN. The learned Advocate General has also referred to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners wherein specific averment has been made that the notice dated 22-04-2025 as mentioned in the impugned order dated 05-05-2025 seeking comment of the State of Jharkhand on the notification dated 03-04-2025 of the State of Bihar was never received and while demanding a proof from the Returning W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Patna about service of notice, the email address which was provided was a wrong address and no such email was received by the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jharkhand. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate General making a reference to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5 (BISCOMAUN) that the averments in the said affidavit relate to the "erstwhile" State of Bihar conveniently ignoring the claim of the State of Jharkhand regarding the equity shares it has after bifurcation of the State. Though a statement has been given that no share capital subscription was made by either of the two States after reorganization of the State, but the same cannot be a ground to erase the equity share of the State of Jharkhand which was already in existence. It has also been submitted while referring to the case of Bihar State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2003 (3) JCR 302 (JHR) that the question formulated as to whether after reorganization of the State, the COMFED, a cooperative society shall be deemed to be a Multi-State Cooperative Society under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 or not has been answered in the affirmative which has been upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has thus been submitted that the prayer made by the petitioners in this writ application be allowed and the impugned letters and notification dated 05-05-2025 and 03-04-2025 respectively be quashed and set aside.
5. In the array of respondents represented by several counsels, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the newly added respondent no. 7 has taken up the cause of the said respondent and has submitted that it took the State of Jharkhand, 25 years to agitate the issue which is the subject matter of the present writ application and such delay would be fatal to the cause of the writ petitioner.
W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 8Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) While referring to the prayer portion of the writ application, it has been submitted that prayer (i) suggests that the dispute revolves around the State of Jharkhand and Union of India, while prayer
(ii) centres around the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand. The notification dated 03-04-2025 of the State of Bihar has dealt with Section 48(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 to the effect that the State of Bihar has an equity share of 99.26%, while the rest 0.74% are held by the Member Cooperative Societies and this fact has been admitted at para 5 of the writ application. Mr. Sinha has pointedly referred to Clause 27(vi) of the Bye-laws of BISCOMAUN which provides for the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand or his nominee to be a Member of the Board of Directors, but as per the communication dated 02-02-2024 of the Office of the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bye- laws No. 27 was not approved as the proposed amendment was not framed properly. In context of the non-approval of Clause 27 of the Bye-laws, submission has been advanced that an incorrect and contrary statement has been made at para 9 of the writ application. The basis for nomination of Afren George Kujur as Member in the Board of Director was Clause 27 of the Bye-laws which itself is redundant in view of the said clause having not been approved. The Bye-laws, in any view of the matter, cannot take precedence over the statute. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7 has extensively referred to the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and while reading Section 103(4) of the Act, has emphatically submitted that the territorial jurisdiction was at Patna as the principal place of business is situated in Patna in the State of Bihar. Section 84 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 has also been referred to by the learned senior counsel, who has submitted that the same deals with reference of disputes for arbitration and Section 84(2)(c) brings within its ambit the present dispute with respect W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) to nomination of a Member from the State of Jharkhand to the Board of Directors. The jurisdiction of the High Court, as per Mr. Sinha, in adjudicating the present lis is barred in terms of Article 131 of the Constitution of India. In support of such contention, Mr. Sinha has referred to the case of Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd. & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (2006) 1 SCC 442, State of Meghalaya v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2023) SCC Online 613 and State of Jharkhand v. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2015) 2 SCC
431. The counter affidavit of the respondent no. 3 has been brought to the notice of the Court which speaks of the fact that the observation made with regard to the equity share value of approximately Rs. 14.63 lakhs does not confer any right upon the State of Jharkhand to make any nominations in terms of Section 48 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.
6. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the newly added respondent no. 8 has, at the outset, submitted that he is adopting the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7. He has furthered his submission by making a reference to Article 131 of the Constitution of India, while submitting that taking recourse to the same is the only remedy available to the petitioners and the present writ application should be dismissed on the ground of non-availability of territorial jurisdiction. He has submitted that in terms of Section 103 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 there has to be a resolution, but there is no resolution as in case of a dispute, Section 103(4) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 will come into play. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel has submitted that the entire facets of the case would reveal that in the garb of elections, the State of Jharkhand is seeking equity shares.
7. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Solicitor General of W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) India has also adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior Counsel for the respondent no. 7 and has explored some added features of the case. Section 9 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 has been referred while submitting that BISCOMAUN is a body corporate. He has referred to Section 61 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 which incentivizes the Cooperative Society Movement by calling upon the Central Government or the State Government to subscribe to the share capital of a Multi-State Cooperative Society and this provision, according to Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI, should be read with Section 48 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 where nomination on the Board could be made if the share capital of a Multi-State Cooperative Society has been subscribed. It has been submitted that there has to be some contribution from the State of Jharkhand in terms of Section 61 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and only then Section 48 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 could be invoked. In such background fact, it has been submitted that no prejudice is caused to the State of Jharkhand even if it is assumed that notice was not served upon it. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI has referred to the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 5215.
8. Mr. S.P. Roy, learned G.A.-Bihar has reiterated the submissions advanced by the earlier counsels appearing for the respective respondents.
9. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 has referred to Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, while submitting that the same confers the limited jurisdiction of this Court. The dispute is an election dispute purely. He has also adopted the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. Mr. Tandon has referred to the case of Boddula Krishnaiah & Anr. v. State Election W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) Commissioner & Ors. reported in (1996) 3 SCC 416.
10. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G.-II representing the State of Jharkhand, in reply to the various contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respondents has submitted that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ application as the cause of action arose because of the communication dated 05-05-2025. It has been submitted that though an issue has been raised with respect to the delay, but the same has not been substantiated. Merely because no claim was made earlier, the same would not prejudice the case of the writ petitioner. After bifurcation of the State, no share has been floated. So far as Para 5 of the writ application which has been harped upon by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7 is concerned, it has been submitted that mention has been made of the "erstwhile" State of Bihar and not to the successor State upon bifurcation. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G.-II has made reference to Section 103 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 while submitting that the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Section 84 of the Act will not apply as the petitioner has not challenged the election and there is no election dispute. He has also referred to the balance sheet of BISCOMAUN-Bihar and Jharkhand as on 31-03-2024 which indicates the authorized share capital of both the States and which enhances the claim of the petitioners. Countering the submission of Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 on the issue of cause of action, Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been read and it has been submitted that a part cause of action arises in the State of Jharkhand as several cooperative societies within the State of Jharkhand are registered with BISCOMAUN. As regards, Article 131 of the Constitution of India is concerned, Mr. Sachin Kumar learned A.A.G.-II has placed reliance in the case of Tashi Delek W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) Gaming Solutions Ltd. v. State of Karnataka reported in (2006) 1 SCC 442, Union of India v. State of Rajasthan reported in (1984) 4 SCC 238, State of Bihar v. Union of India & Anr. Reported in (1970) 1 SCC 67,
11. We have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the various affidavits which have been filed on behalf of them.
12. The prologue to the ongoing disputation was the letter dated 06-02-2025 issued by the petitioner no. 2 and addressed to the Administrator, BISCOMAUN informing therein that in terms of Clause 27(vi) of the Bye-laws of BISCOMAUN, Shri Afren George Kujur, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society Jharkhand has been nominated as a Member of the Board of Director, BISCOMAUN which was based on the assumption that the State of Jharkhand has equity share in BISCOMAUN. The said nomination was accepted by the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 21-02-2025 in terms of Section 48(1)(a) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The voters list which was published also reflected the name of the nominated member of the State of Jharkhand. The claim of the State of Jharkhand was, however, obliterated by virtue of the notification dated 03-04-2025 issued by the State of Bihar to the effect that the State of Jharkhand does not have any equity share in BISCOMAUN as 99.26% of the equity shares is held by the State of Bihar, while 0.74% of the equity share is held by Member Cooperative Societies. Comments were sought for from the State of Jharkhand which was not received and which has been stressed much by the learned Advocate General that the notice was never received by the State of Jharkhand hence the principles of natural justice has not been adhered to. The resultant effect was the impugned letter dated 05-05-2025 which impeded a nomination of the State of Jharkhand in the Board of Directors and the reduction in the W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) number of Directors from 21 to 20.
13. Section 48 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and the Bye-laws of BISCOMAUN have attained center stage on account of the said provision having given a vested right to the State of Jharkhand to nominate a member in the Board of Directors of BISCOMAUN. Section 48 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 reads as follows:
"48. Nominee of Central Government or State Government on board.--
(1) Where the Central Government or a State Government has subscribed to the share capital of a multi-State co-operative society, the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, or any person authorised by the Central Government or the State Government shall have right to nominate on the board such number of persons as its members on the following basis, namely:--
(a) where the total amount of issued equity share capital held by the Central Government or the State Government is less than twenty-
six per cent of the total issued equity share capital, one member of the board;
(b) where the total amount of issued equity share capital held by the Central Government or the State Government is twenty-six per cent or more but less than fifty-
W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 14Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) one per cent of the total issued equity share capital, two members of the board;
(c) where the total amount of issued equity share capital held by the Central Government or the State Government is fifty-one per cent or more of the total issued share capital, three members of the board:
Provided that the number of such nominated persons shall not exceed one-
third of the total number of members of the board:
Provided further that where the Central Government or a State Government has guaranteed the repayment of principal and payment of interest on debentures issued by a multi-State co-operative society or has guaranteed the repayment of principal and payment of interest on loans and advances to a multi-State co-operative society or has given any assistance by way of grants or otherwise to a multi-State co-operative society, the Central Government or the State Government in this behalf, as the case may be, or any person authorised by the Central Government, shall have the right to nominate person on the board of such a society in the manner as may be prescribed.W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 15
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) (2) A person nominated under this section shall hold office during the pleasure of the Government by which he has been so nominated."
14. According to the learned Advocate General, the right of nomination of one member flowed from this provision, though at the same time, he has submitted that based on the distribution of assets and liabilities, the State of Jharkhand ideally should have two members. Section 48(1)(a) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 quoted above gives the competency to nominate one member in the Board if the equity share capital held by the State Government or Central Government is less than 26% of the total issued equity share capital. Section 48 of the Cooperative Societies Act has to be read with Clause 27 of the Bye-laws of BISCOMAUN and the same reads as under:
27.Board of Directors The Board of Directors shall in no case exceed 21(twenty one) members. Further that the Board may co-opt two directors in addition to 21 (twenty one) the Managing Director of BISCOMAUN shall be a ex-officio member of the Board and shall also be excluded for the purpose of counting the total number of directors specified.
The Management of the BISCOMAUN shall vest in a Board of Directors consisting of 21 (twenty one) members as below :-
i. Fifteen shall be elected from the delegates representing "A" Class Member of which, a minimum of One each shall be Women, SC & SC/OBC Candidate.
ii. Two shall be elected from the delegates W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) representing "B" class member/ iii. One shall be representative of NCDC or one representative of NABARD or a financial institution providing loan or financial assistance to BISCOMAUN on terms and conditions mutually agreed upon.
iv. One shall be representative of a National level Cooperative Society, if is has subscribed to a minimum level of Share Capital as may be mutually agreed upon, Provided that if there are more than one National Society as member then the representation shall be by way of election from this constituency.
v. One shall be the Registrar, Co-operative societies, Bihar or his nominee. vi. One shall be the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand or his nominee. vii. Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected from amongst the member of the Board of Director of Class 'A' Share Holders. viii. Chief Executive shall be ex-officio member of the board.
27 (A)
(a) NO director of BISCOMAUN Board shall, as a director, be present in the discussion of, or vote on, any contract or arrangement entered into, or to be entered into, by or on behalf of BISCOMAUN, if he or his relative is directly or indirectly concerned or interested in such contract or arrangement and no relative of any of the sitting directors of BISCOMAUNshall be recruited as an employee including the Managing Director of BISCOMAUN.W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 17
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB )
(b) The term, "relative" with reference to Clause
(a) above includes persons and individuals as provided in Explanation to sub-clause-6 to section 41 of the Act.
(c) Any director of the board who violates the provision of clause (a) above shall be disqualified for being a member of the board and deemed to have vacated his office from the date of such meeting of the board as is referred to in the said clause(a) and such proceedings shall be deemed to be void.
27 (B) Functional Directors The Board may appoint Functional Directors as per the requirement for conducting its affairs and such directors shall be excluded for the purpose of total number of directors specified in clause (1) to Bye-Law no. 27.
15. Clause 27(vi) of the By-laws specifies about one member who shall be the Registrar, Cooperative Societies Jharkhand or his nominee. However, such clause underlining the claim of the State of Jharkhand of having one nominated member in the Board of Directors has floundered on encountering a roadblock in the form of a communication dated 02-02-2024 issued from the Office of the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies addressed to the Chief Election Officer, BISCOMAUN that Bye- laws No. 27 has not been approved as the proposed amendment was not framed properly. We may, at this juncture, take note of the of the averments made in the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 3 relating to nomination of one member of the State of Jharkhand and the same reads as under:
"20. That it is stated that the Cooperative Election Authority W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) communicated through the to the District Magistrate, Section Officer Returning Officer and Patna vide letter dated 21st February, 2025 that NCDC is not eligible to nominate a Member of Board of Directors as it does not hold any equity share capital as required under Section 48. Further, the Jharkhand Government's one nomination of Registrar of Cooperative Society is within Clause 48(1)(a). Government of Jharkhand has equity share value of approximately Rs. 14.63 lakhs as indicated in notification dated 31.01.2025 of the Government of Bihar. Accordingly, the Returning Officer was requested to take action accordingly and the number of directors, who would be participating to cast their vote at the time of election of office bearer shall be 21.
The answering respondent has considered the equity share value of State of Jharkhand to be Rs. 14.63 lakhs in the aforesaid letter dated 21st February, 2025 mistakenly by misinterpreting the notification as contained in memo no. 1081 dated 31.01.2025 issued by the State of Bihar, in the said notification dated 31.01.2025, the total share capital has been mentioned as 19,76,19,837.00 and the share capital of State of Bihar has been mentioned as 19,61,56,075.00 and if the aforesaid amount is being deducted from the total share capital then it comes to Rs. 14.63 W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 19 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) lakhs. Since in the said notification dated 31.01.2025, the share capital of the cooperative society has not been mentioned and therefore, it has been presumed to be that of State of Jharkhand. Since the share capital of State of Jharkhand has not been determined and, therefore, the observation made with regard to the equity share value of approximately 14.63 lakhs does not confer any right upon the State of Jharkhand to make any nomination in terms of Section 48.
16. The jurisdictional issue has garnered considerable attention as it is the consistent case of the respondents that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide this writ application. For this purpose, the first provision we are considering is Section 103 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 which is one of the pivotal points raised by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7 and adopted by the other learned counsels appearing for the respondents. Section 103 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 reads as follows:
"103. Co-operative societies functioning immediately before reorganisation of States.--
(1) Where, by virtue of the provisions of Part II of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956) or any other enactment relating to reorganisation of States, any co-operative society which immediately before the day on which the reorganisation takes place, had its objects confined to one State becomes, as from that day, a multi-State co-operative society, it shall be W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 20 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) deemed to be a multi-State co-operative society registered under the corresponding provisions of this Act and the bye-laws of such society shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue to be in force until altered or rescinded:
[Provided that where all the successor States take necessary steps to divide or reorganise such deemed multi-State co-operative society into State co-operative societies in order to confine their objects, services and the members to respective States within a period of three years, such deemed multi-State co-operative society shall cease to be a multi-State co-operative society:
Provided further that the deemed multi-State co-operative society other than those mentioned in the first proviso shall submit an application for registration and obtain the certificate of registration from the Central Registrar.] (2) If it appears to the Central Registrar or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the authorised officer) that it is necessary or expedient to reconstitute or reorganise any society referred to in sub-section (1), the Central Registrar or the authorised officer, as the case may be, may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, place before a meeting of the general body of that society, held in such manner as may be prescribed, a scheme for the reconstitution or reor ganisation, including proposals regarding--W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 21
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB )
(a) the formation of new multi-State co-
operative societies and the transfer thereto in whole or in part, of the assets and liabilities of that society; or
(b) the transfer, in whole or in part, of the assets and liabilities of that society to any other multi-State co-operative society in existence immediately before the date of that meeting of the general body (hereafter in this section referred to as the existing multi-State co-operative society).
(3) If the scheme is sanctioned by a resolution passed by a majority of the members present at the said meeting, either without modifications or with modifications to which the Central Registrar or the authorised officer agrees, he shall certify the scheme and upon such certification, the scheme shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, regulation or bye- laws for the time being in force, be binding on all the societies affected by the scheme, as well as the shareholders and creditors of all such societies.
(4) If the scheme is not sanctioned under sub- section (3), the Central Registrar or the authorised officer may refer the scheme to such Judge of the appropriate High Court, as may be nominated in this behalf by the Chief Justice thereof, and the decision of that Judge in regard to the scheme shall be final and shall be binding on all the W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 22 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) societies affected by the scheme as well as the shareholders and creditors of all such societies.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "appropriate High Court" means the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the principal place of business of the multi-State co-operative society is situated.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a scheme under sub-section (2) includes any proposal regarding the transfer of the assets and liabilities of any multi-State co- operative society referred to in clause (b) thereof, the scheme shall not be binding on such multi- State co-operative society or the shareholders and creditors thereof, unless the proposal regarding such transfer is accepted by that multi-State co- operative society by a resolution passed by a majority of the members present at a meeting of its general body."
17. The explanation to Sub-section (4) of Section 103 of the Cooperative Societies Act defines "appropriate High Court" which means the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the principal place of business of the Multi State Cooperative Society is situated. This would be invoked only when necessity would arise in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 103 of the Act and the procedure to be followed if the scheme is not sanctioned is ingrained in the said provision itself. This provision does not have any bearing with the present case and the explanation to Sub-section (4) of Section 103 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 cannot be given any wide amplitude and will W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 23 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) be restricted to the contours defined in Sub-section (4). Therefore, Section 103(4) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 would not act as a guiding light in the quest of the respondents to divest this Court from having territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.
18. Now we shall delve into the provisions of Section 84 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 which reads as under:
"84. Reference of disputes.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if any dispute [other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a multi-State co-operative society against its paid employee or an industrial dispute as defined in clause (k) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)] touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State co-operative society arises--
(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or
(b) between a member, past members and persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the multi-
State co-operative society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the multi-State co-operative society or liquidator, past or present, or
(c) between the multi-State co-operative society or its board and any past board, any W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 24 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) officer, agent or employee' or any past officer, past agent or past employee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the multi-State co-operative society, or
(d) between the multi-State co-operative society and any other multi-State co-
operative society, between a multi-State co- operative society and liquidator of another multi-State co-operative society or between the liquidator of one multi-State co-operative society and the liquidator of another multi- State co-operative society, such dispute shall be referred to arbitration.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or business of a multi- State co-operative society, namely:--
(a) a claim by the multi-State co-operative society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not;
(b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the multi-State co-operative society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 25 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;
(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of a multi-State co-
operative society.
(3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to arbitration under this section is or is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State co-operative society, the decision thereon of the arbitrator shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.
(4) Where a dispute has been referred to arbitration under sub-section (1), the same shall be settled or decided by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Registrar.
(5) Save as otherwise provided under this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to all arbitration under this Act as if the proceedings for arbitration were referred for settlement or decision under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."
19. The parties to a dispute and the features of the dispute have been conceptualized in this provision and such dispute shall be referred to arbitration. This provision has been sought to be highlighted to impress upon the Court about the existence of an alternative remedy in the form of arbitration. Section 84(2)(c) has been the one of the focal points of argument of Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7. So far as W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 26 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) Section 84 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 is concerned, it relates to a dispute in connection with the election of any officer of a Multi-State Cooperative Society. No doubt Section 84(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 deals with the various types of disputes, but Section 84(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 accentuates the parties to a dispute. Section 84 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 unveils disputes which touches upon the internal mechanism of a Multi-State Cooperative Society including an election dispute, but such provision would not be applicable when the dispute is on a wider canvas involving two States. We, therefore, do not find the applicability and sustainability of the provisions of Section 84 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 in the present case.
20. The learned counsel for the respondents have copiously referred to Article 131 of the Constitution of India. The same reads as under:
"131. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.--Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute--
(a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or
(b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or
(c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends:W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 27
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) [Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which, having been entered into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution, continues in operation after such commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute.]"
21. In the case of Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd. v. State of Karnataka reported in (2006) 1 SCC 442, it has been held as follows:
"21. Article 131 of the Constitution postulates that this Court to the exclusion of any other court shall have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States; or between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or between two or more States. We in this case are not concerned with the proviso to the said article. The said article would be attracted where adjudication is necessary in relation to a legal right of one State or the Union of India vis-à-vis other States, as the case may be.
Indisputably, the expression "legal right" has received liberal interpretation by this Court from time to time. However, it is now well settled by W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 28 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) various decisions of this Court that this article will not be applicable where citizens or private bodies are parties either jointly or in the alternative with the State or the Government of India. The enlarged definition of "State"
under Article 12 would not extend to Article 131 of the Constitution. It is also not in dispute that even a statutory corporation is not a State within the meaning of the said provision."
22. In State of Jharkhand v. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2015) 2 SCC 431, it has been held as follows:
"8. By the said judgment, this Court held as follows: (State of M.P. case SCC p. 276, para 20) "20. By way of the present amendment, the plaintiff State of M.P. is seeking to challenge the validity of the Central law in a proceeding (suit) initiated under Article 131 of the Constitution.
Normally, for questions relating to validity of Central or other laws, the appropriate forum is the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ petition and not an original suit filed under Article 131 which vests exclusive jurisdiction on this Court as regards the disputes W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 29 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) enumerated therein. It is relevant to point out that Article 131-A of the Constitution inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, provides for exclusive jurisdiction to this Court in regard to questions as to constitutionality of Central laws. The said Article 131-A viewed as substantially curtailing the power of judicial review of the writ courts, that is, the High Courts under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 was omitted vide the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977. It follows that when the Central laws can be challenged in the State High Courts as well and also before this Court under Article 32, normally, no recourse can be permitted to challenge the validity of a Central law under the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court provided under Article
131."
14. It can be seen from the language of Article 131 that the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court extends to any dispute between the Government of India and any one or more States and the disputes arising between two or W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 30 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) more States in various possible combinations specified in the said article. The dispute could be on a question of fact or law or fact.
23. In State of Karnataka v. Union of India reported in (1977) 4 SCC 608, it has been held as follows:
"162. The jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 131 of the Constitution should not be tested on the anvil of banal rules which are applied under the Code of Civil Procedure for determining whether a suit is maintainable. Article 131 undoubtedly confers "original jurisdiction"
on the Supreme Court and the commonest form of a legal proceeding which is tried by a Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction is a suit. But a constitutional provision, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on this Court to entertain disputes of a certain nature in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, cannot be equated with a provision conferring a right on a civil court to entertain a common suit so as to apply to an original proceeding under Article 131 the canons of a suit which is ordinarily triable under Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure by a Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Advisedly, the Constitution does not describe the proceeding which may be brought under Article 131 as a "suit" and significantly, Article 131 uses words and phrases not W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 31 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) commonly employed for determining the jurisdiction of a Court of first instance to entertain and try a suit. It does not speak of a "cause of action", an expression of known and definite legal import in the word of witness actions. Instead, it employs the word 'dispute', which is no part of the elliptical jargon of law. But above all, Article 131 which in a manner of speaking is a self- contained code on matters falling within its purview, provides expressly for the condition subject to which an action can lie under it. That condition is expressed by the clause:"if and insofar as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends". By the very terms of the article, therefore, the sole condition which is required to be satisfied for invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court is that the dispute between the parties referred to in clauses (a) to (c) must involve a question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
163. The quintessence of Article 131 is that there has to be a dispute between the parties regarding a question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. A challenge by the State Government to the authority of the Central Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry clearly involves a question on which the existence or W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 32 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) extent of the legal right of the Central Government to appoint the Commission of Inquiry depends and that is enough to sustain the proceeding brought by the State under Article 131 of the Constitution. Far from its being a case of the "omission of the obvious", justifying the reading of words into Article 131 which are not there, I consider that the Constitution has purposefully conferred on this Court a jurisdiction which is untrammelled by considerations which fetter the jurisdiction of a Court of first instance, which entertains and tries suits of a civil nature. The very nature of the disputes arising under Article 131 is different, both in form and substance, from the nature of claims which require adjudication in ordinary suits."
24. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G.-II has submitted that so far as the case of Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Limited and Another (supra) is concerned, the same involves a commercial dispute concerning Multiple States wherein a constitutional issue was in the fray, unlike the present case, wherein the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is enmeshed in the factual aspects itself. He has referred to the case of Union of India v. State of Rajasthan reported in (1984) 4 SCC 238, wherein it has been held as follows:
"12. On a careful consideration of the whole matter in the light of the decisions of this Court referred to above, we feel that Article 131 of the Constitution is attracted only when a dispute arises between or amongst W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 33 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) the States and the Union in the context of the constitutional relationship that exists between them and the powers, rights, duties, immunities, liabilities, disabilities etc. flowing therefrom. Any dispute which may arise between a State in the capacity of an employer in a factory, a manufacturer of goods subject to excise duty, a holder of a permit to run a stage carriage, a trader or businessman carrying on business not incidental to the ordinary functions of Government, a consumer of railway services etc. like any other private party on the one hand and the Union of India on the other cannot be construed as a dispute arising between the State and the Union in discharge of their respective executive powers attracting Article 131 of the Constitution. It could never have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution that any ordinary dispute of this nature would have to be decided exclusively by the Supreme Court. It is well to remember that the constitutional proposals of the Sapru Committee advocated the strengthening of the position of the Federal Court in India and widening its jurisdiction on the original side so that the Federal Court could act as an interpreter and guardian of the Constitution and as a tribunal for the determination of the disputes between the constituent units of the Federation. The Joint Committee on Indian W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 34 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) Constitutional Reforms was also of opinion that the object of conferring exclusive original jurisdiction on the Federal Court was that the disputes of the kind specified between the Federation and the Provinces as the constituent units of the Federation should not be left to be decided by courts of law of a particular unit but be adjudicated upon only by the highest tribunal in the land which would be beyond the influence of any one constituent unit. The Special Committee consisting of Sriyuts S. Varadachariar, Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, B.L. Mitter, K.M. Munshi and B.N. Rau appointed by the Constituent Assembly to consider and report on the constitution and powers of the Supreme Court suggested "that the Supreme Court, like the Federal Court under the 1935 Constitution, would be the best available forum for the adjudication of all disputes between the Union and a unit and between one unit and another and proposed that the court should have an exclusive original jurisdiction in such disputes". (Vide The Framing of India's Constitution--A Study by Shri B. Shiva Rao at p. 483). Considered in the light of the foregoing the conclusion becomes inevitable that disputes of the nature involved in this case could not have been in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution when they adopted Article 131 of the Constitution."W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 35
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB )
25. What can be culled out from the above is that in order to invoke Article 131 of the constitution of India, there must be an existence of a legal right of a State or the Union of India to be adjudicated upon. The entire spectrum of the case involves a dispute which transcends into the realm of a legal right concomitant with the dispute between the State of Jharkhand and the State of Bihar over the equity share in the Multi State Cooperative Society and the resultant representative of the State of Jharkhand by nominating a member in the Board of Directors and such question has to be adjudicated upon by invoking Article 131 of the Constitution of India.
26. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has drawn our attention to the interim order which has been passed on 08-05-2025 and in such context, has referred to the case of Boddula Krishnaiah & Anr. v. State Election Commissioner & Ors. reported in (1996) 3 SCC 416, in which it has been held as follows:
"11. In State of Karnataka v. Union of India Beg C.J. stated as under: (SCC pp. 685-86, para 146) "It has to be remembered that Article 131 is traceable to Section 204 of the Government of India Act. The jurisdiction conferred by it thus originated in what was part of the federal structure set up by the Government of India Act, 1935. It is a remnant of the federalism found in that Act. It should, therefore, be widely and generously interpreted for that reason too so as to advance the intended remedy.W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 36
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) It can be invoked, in my opinion, whenever a State and other States or the Union differ on a question of interpretation of the Constitution so that a decision of it will affect the scope or exercise of governmental powers which are attributes of a State. It makes no difference to the maintainability of the action if the powers of the State, which are Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, are exercised through particular individuals as they necessarily must be. It is true that a criminal act committed by a Minister is no part of his official dudes. But, if any of the organs of the State claim exclusive power to take cognizance of it, the State, as such, becomes interested in the dispute about the legal competence or extent of powers of one of its organs which may emerge."
12. Under these circumstances, we hold that the order passed by the High Court is not correct in law in giving direction not to declare the result of the election or to conduct fresh poll for 20 persons, though the writ petition is maintainable. The High Court, pending writ petition, would not be justified in issuing direction to stall the election process. It is made clear that though we have held that the respondents are not entitled to the relief by interim order, this order does not preclude any candidate including defeated candidate from canvassing the correctness of the election.
W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 37Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17328-DB ) They are free, as held earlier, to seek remedy by way of an election petition as provided in the Act and the Rules."
27. Since we have already held that the dispute governing the present case is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court, we are not making any observation on the said submission, as in view of this order, there will be no impediment to continue with the election process.
28. As a consequence, to the discussions made hereinabove, we dispose of this writ application with a liberty to the petitioner to avail its remedy before the appropriate forum as enunciated above.
29. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (AMBUJ NATH, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 1st Day of July, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R. W.P.(C) NO. 2485 OF 2025 38