Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Suresh Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Chhitar ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 2022
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17417/2022
Suresh Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Chhitar Lal, Aged About 44
Years, Resident Of Padmpura, Relawan, Relawan, Baran,
Presently Chairman, Sevani Vrihat Krishi Bahuudeshiya Sahkari
Samiti Limited, Sevani District Baran.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principle Secretary,
Cooperative Societies Department, Govt. Of Raj. Jaipur.
2. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nehru Sahkar Bhawan
Jaipur.
3. The State Cooperative Election Authority, Rajasthan Rajya
Shikari, Nirvachan Pradhikaran, 10 B Sansthagat Shetra,
Raisem Bhawan, Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur.
4. Zonal Returning Officer, And The Additional Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Baran (Raj.)
5. Managing Director, Co-Operative Societies, Zone Kota.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Khandelwal For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 25/11/2022 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.11.2022 (Annexure-2) passed by the respondent No.4-Zonal Returning Officer and the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Baran (Raj.) whereby the election programme for the post of Sevani Vrihat Krishi Bahuudeshiya Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Sevani has been scheduled to be held on 03.12.2022.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 03:06:53 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-17417/2022] Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 2016 (4) SCC 429 [Shaji K. Joseph Vs. V. Viswanath & Ors.] in paras 14 and 15 held as under:-
"14. In our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with the process of election especially when the process of election had started upon publication of the election program on 27th January, 2011 and more particularly when an alternative statutory remedy was available to Respondent No. 1 by way of referring the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations. So far as the issue with regard to eligibility of Respondent No. 1 for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie it appears that Respondent No. 1 could contest the election, we do not propose to go into the said issue because, in our opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without court's order. Very often, for frivolous reasons candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election.
15. This Court, in Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (supra) has held that once the election process starts, it would not be proper for the courts to interfere with the election process. Similar view was taken by this Court in Shri (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 03:06:53 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-17417/2022] Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (supra)."
In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shaji K. Joseph (supra) as well as considering the fact that the notification with regard to the elections has already been issued vide order dated 12.11.2022, no interference is required to be made by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J AARZOO ARORA /88 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 03:06:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)