Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. I have heard Shri N.P. Patil-Jamalpurkar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners; Shri E.P. Sawant, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3; Shri V.D. Hon, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 9 - Disputants and also for respondents 10 to 17 - Elected Members.

3. Shri Patil-Jamalpurkar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, firstly contended that unless the elections are over, Co-operative Court does not get any jurisdiction to interfere with the election process of a Co-operative Society in a dispute filed under section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act. He further contended that the list of voters as was on the last day of filing of nomination papers cannot be altered, amended or added till the election process is complete. He contended further that in view of the peculiar facts of the case, a dispute under section 91 is not an efficacious remedy and this Court should quash the election results also. Shri V.D. Hon, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, submitted that since the election process is already over and the results have also been announced, remedy available to the petitioners is a dispute under section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act. He contended that an approval of the membership is a must under the bye-laws and the Managing Committee.

4. Every election process provides for the filing of claims and objections to the provisional voters list and then at a stage prescribes that the voters list shall be final. It is always necessary that the finality will have to be attached to every voters list during the process of election. Normally, no election process admits change in voters list after the last day of nomination since a change in the voters list at a later stage is likely to affect the validity of nomination of the candidate also, if the name of the candidate or the proposer is deleted at a later stage. If the name of the candidate is not there on the last day of nomination, his subsequent inclusion will not validate his nomination. A voters list can never be allowed to remain in dispute when the election process is going on since it is the basis of a valid election. The rights of the contestants and voters will have to be judged on the basis of the voters list and once it is held to be finalised by the authority prescribed under the Act, further interference in the voters list would invalidate the whole election process. Finality of the voters list during the election process is one of the basic principle of the valid election process.

8. Civil Courts or the Co-operative Courts entertaining Civil Suits in respect of the election matters should always be very cautious in exercising their jurisdiction. Interference by them which may either impermissible or undesirable, often stalls the process of election and causes great public inconvenience. Once that interference is there, it is very difficult to put the wheel back in action. The damage which is done can never be undone. Despite all the warnings by the Apex Court and this Court, in many cases, lower courts entertain a challenge in the midst of the election process and passes interim orders often without hearing the other side. If a suit is filed or application for interim relief is moved just a day or two days before the actual date of poll, the bona fides of the plaintiff or the applicant should be seriously doubted and examined thoroughly. This leaves no room for other side to prevent the mischief which the plaintiff or the applicant, in many cases, wants to cause by misuse of the process of law. The first question the learned Judge should ask is, as to why this challenge is filed so late. The second question is, whether the grievance can be made after the declaration of the result. If the answer of any of these questions is in the affirmative, Court should stay its hands off, particularly in the elections to the Co-operative Societies and the local bodies. The public money, for which neither of the parties may care, is lost because of such interference in the election. Therefore, the stay of the election process in unwarranted circumstances must be totally deprecated. In the instant case, though the Assistant Registrar considered the same objections and declared the final list of voters, nothing was done for a month and the dispute was filed about two days before the election. That itself was sufficient for the learned Judge to refuse to entertain the prayer for interim relief.

10. Shri Hon further submitted that the results of the election would show that the respondents 10 to 17 are elected by a margin of more than 400 votes and, therefore, assuming that these 110 persons would have allowed to vote and would have voted en bloc in favour of the petitioners, even then the election results would not have been different. He submitted that since the result of the election is not materially affected, the election results be not quashed. It is true that every infraction of the rule will not vitiate the election. In some cases, it will have to be shown that the contravention of the rule did materially affect the result of the election. Therefore, some statutes providing ground for setting aside the election do specify that the contravention of the rule should have materially affected the result of the election. But to follow the final list of voters at the process of election is a requirement which is foundation of a valid election. When the electoral roll was prepared by Delhi Bar Council on the basis of an invalid rule, Supreme Court, Bar Council of Delhi & another v. Surjeet Singh & others, , observed that the infraction goes to the root of the matter and no election held on the basis of such an infirmity can be upheld. It was pleased to observe that there is no question of the result being materially affected in such a case. The same principle will have to be followed here. The final list of voters was prevented from being operative and 110 persons were illegally estopped from exercising their franchise. It is also contended that many others did not come to vote looking to these uncertainities. It is alleged that in protest some persons boycotted the election. It is not necessary to go into that question. If the voters list which was valid one for the election was not allowed to be operative and it was interfered, that too in respect of 110 voters, it invalidates the whole election process and for maintaining sanctity of the election process, it is necessary to quash the election and direct fresh elections on the basis of the voters list finalised by respondent No. 2 - Assistant Registrar. Shri Hon further submitted that the approval of these 110 disputed persons as members of the Society was itself illegal since this resolution was passed in a meeting where there was no quorum, the question need not be gone into at this stage. The objection was considered by the Assistant Registrar and was disposed of. If the law permits, their membership can be challenged at the appropriate time before the appropriate forum. But their right to vote should not have been disturbed till the process of election was complete.