Bombay High Court
Nalanda Magasvargiya Majoor Sahakari ... vs The District Co-Op. Election Officer ... on 11 July, 2016
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment. wp2833.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2833 OF 2015.
1. Nalanda Magasvargiya Majoor
Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Akola
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 1057, through its
President Shri Deepak Rupaji
Naik, Aged 60 years, resident of
Akot file, Akola, Tahsil and
District Akola.
2. Panchsheel Majoor Kamgar
Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Chikhali
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 625, through its
President Shri Kundan Govind
Sirsat, Aged 55 years, resident of
Chikhali, Tq. Murtizapur,
District Akola.
3. Pragati Majoor Kamgar
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Murtizapur
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 651, through its
President Shri Chandrashekhar
Narayan Alanare, Aged 51 years,
Resident of Murtizapur, District Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 :::
Judgment. wp2833.15
2
4. Swawalambi Majoor and Hamal
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd.,
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 140, through its
President Shri Devidas Maniram
Shinde, Aged 60 years, resident of
Dhobi Khadan, Jaitvan Nagar, Akola,
Tahsil and District Akola.
5. Akola Zilla Shrama Vahatuk
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd,
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 103, through its
Vice President Shri Sadanand Baburao
Ishwarkar, Aged 52 years, resident of
Jatharpeth, Akola, District Akola.
6. Chakradhar Majoor Kamgar
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd.
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 308, through its
President Shri Gajanan Dhanraj
Gawande, Aged 50 years, resident of
Tankhed, Tq. Akola, District Akola.
7. Sai nath Majoor Kamgar
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Kasarkhed
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 147, through its
President Shri Rajaram Laxmanrao
Lohakare, Aged 54 years, resident of
kasarkhed, Tq. Balapur,
District Akola.
8. Appaswami Majoor Kamgar
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Gawandgaon,
a Cooperative Society bearing
registration no. 1453, through its
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 :::
Judgment. wp2833.15
3
President Shri Janakiram Ragla
Rathod, Aged 62 years, resident of
Gawandgaon, Tq. Patur,
District Akola. ..... PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. The District Cooperative Election
Officer -cum- District Deputy
Registrar, Cooperative Societies
Akola, Tahsil and District Akola.
2. The State Cooperative Election
Authority, through its Election
Commissioner, Central Building,
Pune, Tahsil and District Pune.
3. The Akola District Labour
Cooperative Societies Federation
Ltd., Akola, through its Chairman
Patrakar Colony, 5, Dr. Sarda
Building, in front of L.R.T. College,
Akola. ..... RESPONDENTS.
--------------------------
Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
--------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 :::
Judgment. wp2833.15
4
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
& KUM. INDIRA JAIN,
JJ.
DATE : JULY 11, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Heard Shri A.M. Ghare, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3. Considering the nature of controversy raised and with the consent of the parties, we have taken up the matter for final disposal. Rule is therefore issued and is made returnable forthwith.
2. Short question to be looked into is - Whether judgment dated 29.04.2015 in Writ Petition No.2113/2015, delivered by the learned Single Judge enures to the benefit of present petitioners ?
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 :::Judgment. wp2833.15 5
3. Petitioners, 8 in number are Labour Cooperative Societies, affiliated to Respondent no.3 District Labour Cooperative Federation. Its' general elections were due in 2015. As per judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge the elimination of names of three petitioners in Writ Petition No.2113/2015 from final voters list on the ground that they have not paid supervision charges of 1% of total work allotted by the Federation is, found to be erroneous. Consequently, the finalization of voters list published on 03.02.2015, and an order rejecting objection raised by those three societies passed on 04.04.2015 by respondent no.1 Election Officer, were quashed and set aside. A declaration was issued that no election can be conducted to the Executive Committee of respondent no.3 Federation on the strength of voters list then published on 09.04.2015. Respondent no.1 was directed to correct the final voters list accordingly and to include names of representatives of said petitioner societies in it.
4. Accordingly, respondent no.1 on 07.05.2015, has ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 ::: Judgment. wp2833.15 6 published a final voters list (supplementary) and added names of those three petitioners to it. The respondent no.1 thereafter proceeded further with the election program. These petitioners on 02.05.2015, had raised a demand that their names should also be included in voters list, as their case was on same lines as that of the three petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2113/2015.
Respondent no.1 was to allot symbols to the contesting candidates on 14.05.2015. It is in this background on 12.05.2015, in Summer vacations, a Writ Petition was filed before the learned Vacation Judge and in this Writ Petition, while issuing notice, learned Vacation Judge directed that until further orders, result of election then scheduled on 22.05.2015, be not declared. Accordingly though the elections have been held, results are not declared.
5. On 11.03.2016, this Court modified the interim orders and restrained respondent no.3 Federation from taking any major policy decision or financial decisions.
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 :::Judgment. wp2833.15 7
6. Shri Ghare, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in this background has invited attention to the fact that when on 03.02.2015 at provisional stage, when voters list was published there were 54 members and the said action in terms of notice dated 03.02.2015, was questioned by raising objection. He points out that names of present petitioners appeared at Sr.No. 7, 13, 17, 19, 23, 36, 40 and 44 respectively. Names of their representatives or their addresses were not mentioned. In paragraph no.14 of the Writ Petition, petitioners plead that when provisional voters list was published and objections were invited, it was specifically mentioned that only 13 members are eligible for voting and contesting elections.
7. It is not in dispute that none of the 8 petitioners before this Court raise any objection to provisional voters list and objections were raised only by three petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2113/2015. Their objections were heard on 23.01.2015, and by order dated 04.04.2015, respondent no.1 ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 ::: Judgment. wp2833.15 8 refused to interfere. This was then questioned in Writ Petition No.2113/2015.
8. Thus, judgment in Writ Petition No.2113/2015, expressly considers the grievance of three petitioners in that matter and confines relief to them only.
9. Contention of Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that as this Court in judgment dated 29.04.2015 found that non-payment of 1% of supervision charges could not operate as disqualification, present petitioners also needed to be added in the voters list, needs to be appreciated in this background.
10. Shri Fulzele, learned Addl. Government Pleader as also Shri Wankhede, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, submit that election being a technical matter, objection raised within time and looked into by the Election Officer could thereafter be looked into by the learned Single ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 ::: Judgment. wp2833.15 9 Judge. They submit that petitioners acquiesced in the act of Election Officer and permitted him to proceed further on the strength of provisional voters list. Hence, they cannot turn back after judgment dated 29.04.2015, and seek parity.
11. Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for petitioners in reply points out that on 28.04.2014 itself respondent no.1 had published the list of validly received nomination papers and in that list, names of representatives of first 6 petitioners in present matter figured.
12. Grievance of 8 petitioners initially is/was that names of their representatives did not figure in provisional voters list.
They did not raise any objection, consequently, they were not heard on 23.03.2015, and hence no orders on their alleged grievance was passed and could have been passed on 04.04.2015. In this backdrop, contention that names of six representatives of first six petitioners were included on 28.04.2015 by respondent no.1 in list of contesting candidates ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 ::: Judgment. wp2833.15 10 appears to be strange. It is to be noted that the learned Single Judge has delivered judgment on 29.04.2015 i.e. 1 day thereafter. This development was not pointed by any of the respondents to the learned Single Judge. Keeping in mind the nature of election law, the learned Single Judge has expressly restricted consideration to the grievance of three petitioners. It needs to be reiterated that these three petitioners diligently objected to the provisional voters list and they were also heard by respondent no.1. The learned Single Judge after accepting their grievance directed necessary correction and this is apparent from the directions contained in paragraph no.10 of the said judgment. Said paragraph 10 reads as under :
" 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. The programme of finalization of voters' list published on 3.2.2015 and the orders dated 4.4.2015 passed by the respondent No.1, are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, no elections can be held to the Executive Committee of the respondent No.3-federation on the basis of the final voters' list published on 9.4.2015. The ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 ::: Judgment. wp2833.15 11 respondent No.1 is directed to correct the final voters' list accordingly and to include the names of the representatives of the petitioner-Societies in the voters' list for the elections of the Executive Committee of the respondent No.3-federation, in the absence of the objections other than those which are pointed out in their replies, and to hold the said elections as early as possible."
13. The last part of paragraph no.10 underlined by us clearly takes note of the fact that others had not objected to the provisional voters list and hence, the learned Single Judge did not extend benefit to all similarly placed societies who happened to be members of respondent no.3 Federation.
Petitioners did not find anything wrong with the election process continuing then, and were happy with the earlier provisional voters list. They did not take steps as per law to see that names of their representatives are added in that list as published on 03.02.2015. They were happy with the election process as going on till the learned Single Judge added three more societies to the process. These 8 petitioners are ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 ::: Judgment. wp2833.15 12 disturbed because of opportunity received by the other three societies and therefore, have found it necessary to participate in election. Having not raised the objection initially and without getting their eligibility ascertained at the hands of the election officer, they cannot now seek directly in writ petition, a writ to add their names in final voter's list. Such piece meal challenges would delay the democratic process and defeat its time bound completion. Petitioners have tried to take advantage of illegal action of respondent no.1 and now cannot complaint about correction in it at the instance of a wronged party that too by a Court of law.
14. Moreover, the denial of equal treatment is by the learned Single Judge and it has attained finality. Learned Single Judge has only issued direction to add three names to voters list. The voters list or order impugned in Writ Petition No.2113/2015 was set aside only qua three petitioners therein.
Present petitioners are not beneficiaries thereof.
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 :::Judgment. wp2833.15 13
15. Petitioners therefore, in this situation, having accepted the final voters list as published by respondent no.1 initially, cannot now turn back and claim parity. We find no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed judgment/order.
Uploaded by : R.G. Dhuriya. Uploaded on : 19.07.2016 ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:54:04 :::