Allahabad High Court
Pratap Singh Gariya vs State Of ... on 1 November, 2019
Author: Ritu Raj Awasthi
Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 2 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 30103 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pratap Singh Gariya Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Cooperative Deptt.Lucknow & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II,J.
Notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1, 2 and 4 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties no.3, 5 and 6.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the election notice dated 18.10.2019 issued by opposite party no.6/District Assistant Cooperative Election Officer/Assistant Commissioner & Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lucknow, whereby the election of Central Bank Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., to fill up the existing vacancies, is scheduled to be held.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that elections have been notified without carrying out the delimitation/determination of constituencies on the basis of new regions revised by the Central Bank of India in Uttar Pradesh.
A preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition has been raised by Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for opposite parties no.3, 5 and 6 on the ground that the grievance of the petitioner with respect to the delimitation was raised by him before the authority concerned which was rejected vide order dated 22.8.2019. The said order has been communicated but the same has not been challenged till date. It is also submitted that in view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Mahesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others; [2013 (9) ADJ 695 (DB)] as well as Apex Court judgment in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; (2001) 8 SCC 509 the writ petition would not be maintainable after issuance of notification for election. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed as to how he is aggrieved and what prejudice is being caused to him in case the bye-election is held to fill up the existing vacancies in the society.
We have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records.
In case the petitioner is aggrieved for the reason that without delimitation of the constituencies the election could not be held, then the petitioner could have approached this court prior to issuance of notification, moreover, the order by which his request for delimitation was considered and rejected is not under challenge.
In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to grant indulgence in the matter at this stage. Writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.11.2019 Ram.