Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. It is also axiomatic that normally the High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the process of election once the same has already commenced. Beneficial reference of the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Nanhoo Mal and Others Vs. Hiramal & Ors., reported in (1976) 3 SCC 211; in case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2001(8) SCC,509; and in case of Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors., reported in 2000(8) SCC 216 may be made in this regard. In the instance case the election process has already begun and the final voters' list is also published. The present petitioners are not even the contestants in the election. It appears that they had tried to obstruct the election process, by virtue of their being members of the Managing Committee,by raising objections before the respondent No.4, which have not been accepted by the respondent No.4 by passing a detailed order. The present petitions filed after the commencement of the election process and with a view to stall the election therefore could not be entertained,more particularly when an alternative efficacious remedy of filing the election petition under Rule 28 of the said Rules is available to them.

Further from the reading of Rule 8 of the Rules, it is also clear that when objections are filed under Rule 8(1) of the Rules, it is always open for the authorized officer to hold an inquiry that whether such proposed members of the managing committee are the members of primary agricultural credit cooperative society or not and whether such primary agricultural credit cooperative society is involved in dispensing of agricultural credit in the market area or not. The authorized officer may not conduct in-depth enquiry elaborately, but so as to consider that such nominated members of the particular agricultural society fit into the electorate as contemplated under Section 11(1)(i) of the Act, can make summary inquiry into it. There cannot be any straitjacket formula on the scope of inquiry under Rule 8(2) of the Act with reference to eligibility of the electorate under Section 11(1)(i) of the Act, but it is a matter to be decided by the election officer having regard to the facts of each case. When it is an objection of the objector that the appellant society is not dispensing agricultural credit in the market area,limited inquiry is always permissible by authorized officer under Rule8(2) of the Rules to that limited extent. Further when electrotate under Section 11 (1)(i) of the Act are members of the primary agricultural credit cooperative society dispensing agricultural credit in the market area, it is also open for the authorized officer to examine whether such societies are primary agricultural credit cooperative societies or not which are involved in dispensation of agricultural credit in the market area. While we are in agreement with the view taken by the earlier Division Bench on the restricted scope of inquiry in the case of Shrutbandhu Himatlal Popat (supra), we hold that such finding in the inquiry is to be recorded on the basis of the material placed before the authorized officer having regard to the facts of each case. Such order which is passed by considering the material placed before the authorized officer, cannot be said to be an order passed without jurisdiction or extraordinary circumstances as held by Full Bench of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra), so as to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the remedy available under Rule28 of the Rules. Further, in the judgment in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugha Utpadak Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra and others,reported in (2001) 8 SCC 509, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that breach of or non-compliance of mandatory provisions with rules during the preparation of electorate roll can be challenged in an election petition under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. In the aforesaid decision, it is held that where election process has started, dispute has to be agitated by way of election petition only. It is further held that preparation of voters list is a part of election process for constituting a managing committee of the specified society and such dispute can be resolved by way of election petition. In recent judgment, while considering the validity of rejection of nomination paper under Dental Council (Election)Regulations, 1952 and Dentists Act, 1948 in the case of Shaji K.Joseph v. V.Viswanath & Ors, reported in 2016 (0) AIJ-SC 57978, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election by seeking resolution of dispute as per the regulations.

5.4 The Supreme Court in the case of Shaji K. Joseph vs. V. Viswanath & Ors. reported in (2016)4 SCC 429 observed as under:

"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. In the present case, 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."

47. The Supreme Court, in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swamy (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors (2001) 8 SCC 509, while dealing with the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, held that in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified society where the election process having been set in motion, the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. It was held that the proper remedy is by way of election petition before the Election Tribunal. In view of the above discussion, we answer the Reference as under: