Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v) Whether this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should entertain challenge to the voters' list of a Specifed Co-operative Society when the process of finalization of list was on.

7. The preliminary objection raised by Shri Mhase is that this Court should not entertain this petition and should not interfere seine the election process to elect the Directors of respondent No. 5 Karkhana has already started. In support of his contention, Shri Mhase invited our attention to the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of N. P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District, and in the case of S. T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, . Shri Mhase contended that an election is a periodical exercise and any diversion from the schedule laid down by the statute would be injurious to the very democratic spirit which was the foundation of these institutions. Shri Navandar appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the rule not to interfere in the election process is not the rule of jurisdiction but it is a rule of prudence. The High Court or the Supreme Court can always exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 or Article 32 even when the election process is on in a proper case and if the circumstances warrant. The only limitation on the power is that such powers cannot be exercised in the matter of the elections governed by the Constitution, wherein Article 329(b) prohibits such exercise during the election process. Shri Navandar relied on two judgments of this Court. First is Fandurang Hindurao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 1983 Mh LJ 1081 and the another is Eknath Ashiram Alekar v. State of Maha-rashtra, 1990 (1) Mah LR 418.

".....though no legislature can impose limitations on these consfitutional powers, it is a sound exercise of discretion to bear in mind the policy of the legislature to have disputes about these special rights decided as speedily as may be. Therefore, writ petitions should not be lightly entertained in this class of cases."

10. Keeping in mind the above observations, we will have to decide whether an interference is warranted after examining the facts of the case at hand. Shri Mhase contended that the preparation of the list of voters is one of the stages in the election of a Specified Co-operative Society. In support of this, he relied on the provisions of Section 144X (as amended by Maharashtra Act No. 3 of 1974) of the Co-operative Societies Act which authorized State Government to make rules in respect of elections to the Specified Co-operative Societies and specifically included the preparation of the list of voters as one of the stages of election. Even before the amendment of Section 144X, a Division Bench of this Court (consisting of Vimadalal & Sapre, JJ. in Special Civil Application No. 2550/1972 (decided on 23rd September, 1975 has held that the programme of the finalization of the voters' list is a stage in the election. Shri Mhase also submitted that the validity of the voters' list can also be one of the grounds of objection to be raised in an election petition under Section 144D of the 'Co-operative Societies Act challenging an election of the returned candidate. Though for the preparation of the voters' list the Collector has to publish separate programme and for other stages in the election commencing from filing of the nomination papers till the declaration of the results a separate programme is to be published under Rule 16 of the Specified Societies Rules, that, by itself, will not enable this Court to hold that preparation of the voters' list is not a stage in the election. It is, undoubtedly, a stage in the elections of Specified Co-operative Societies. But that itself will not prevent this Court from entertaining a challenge to voters' list in all cases. While considering the question of relief to be granted by interference, High Court will have to consider how far the election process has proceeded. Though the preparation of the voters' list is a stage in the election, the nature of this stage is totally different from further stages in the election commencing from filing of the nominations. Specified Societies Rules provide publication of two separate programmes, one for preparation of the voters' list and another commencing from filing of the nominations. Before the election process enters in the stage of nominations, the list of the voters is already finalized and it would not be desirable to entertain any challenge to the list of the voters after the nominations are filed. Need to complete the elections in time and allow validly elected body to take over charge at the scheduled time can never be lost sight of. The availability of an alternate efficacious remedy after the elections are over will also have to be considered. But if something goes into the root of the validity of the election can be corrected in time without disturbing the election schedule, then interference would certainly be warranted. In the case of Pandurang Hindurao Patil v- State of Maharashtra Cited supra, an order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court. When this challenge was heard by this Court, Section 152A was not inserted in the Co-operative Societies Act. This Court observed thus :

"We are not inclined to examine the submission of the learned Counsel and grant the relief for the reason that it would immediately disturb the election programme and arrest the process of election."

If the nomination papers have already been filed, the election process is advanced to a stage at which the interference would not normally be called for. In the instant case, no programme under Rule 16 of the Specified Societies Rules has been announced.

15. Shri Mhase relied on another judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Someshwar Sabakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited and etc. v. Shrinivas Patil etc. which holds that the preparation of the list of voters is an intermediate stage in the process of election and also holds that the disputes relating to the voters' list must be resolved by way of substantive election petition under Section 144T of the Co-operative Societies Act and not by a writ petition, So far as the first proposition is concerned, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge. But so far as the second proposition is concerned, we find that that is not the correct position in law. Merely because a point can be raised while questioning the validity of an election, the point is not excluded from consideration in a writ petition. We have already discussed the judgments of Supreme Court in N. P. Ponnuswami's Case cited supra and S. T. Muthusami's Case cited supra and we have also considered the Division Bench judgment in Osmanabad Taluka Bhaji Pala Va Phale Utpadak Prakriya Sanstha Ltd. v. The Collector, Osmanabad cited supra and we have found that there is no rule of jurisdiction prohibiting the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters relating to the preparation of the voters' list in the elections of Specified Co-operative Societies. In S. T. Muthusami's Case (cited supra) the election was at such a stage that it was wrong to interfere and disturb the order of the Returning Officer. Supreme Court, therefore, had set aside the order of the High Court. As already pointed out is the case of Osmanabad Taluka Bhaji Pala Va Phale Utpadak Prakriya Sanstha Ltd., v. The Collector, Osmanabad (cited supra), the filing of the nomination papers was complete and a week thereafter, the High Court was called upon to consider the challenge.

16. For the proposition that the High Court should not in interfere at the stage of preparation of the voters' list, learned sigle Judge of this Court in the case of Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited and etc. v. Shrinvas Patil (cited supra) has relied on S. T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, and the case of Gujarat University v. N. U. Rajguru, . Neither of these cases lay down unexceptionable rule that there should be no interference even at the stage of preparation of voters' list. The facts of Muthusami's Case (cited supra) have already been mentioned above. The High Court had interfered when the list of contesting candidates was also final. In Gujarat University's Case (cited supra) the election process was complete, result was announced and though there was an alternate remedy provided by a mandatory provision, the disputants instead of resorting to that remedy, approached directly to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the High Court had set aside the election Supreme Court disapproved it and reversed the Gujarat High Court's judgment. This was a case wherein the completed election was challenged under Article 226 by passing the machinery designated by the Act. The Supreme Court did find that if the election could be challenged before a forum, that remedy had to be availed, Neither the facts of Muthusami's Case (cited supra) nor the facts of Gujarat University's Case (cited supra) are helpful in appreciating the view taken by the learned signle Judge. Therefore, with respect to the learned single Judge, we are unable to accept the view taken by him. It appears that the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Eknath Ashiram Alekar v. State of Maharashtra (cited supra) was not cited before the learned single Judge. Therein a view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court that if the circumstances so warrant, High Court can interfere at the stage of the preparation of the voters' list and direct an enquiry in exercise of its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Though this power will have to be used sparingly and only if sufficient facts have been placed warranting such an interference, there is no rule that the High Court should not exercise its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of the preparation of the voters' list of Specified Co-operative Societies and should ask the petitioner to go for the election on the basis of a defective list and challenge it only after the elections on the basis of that list were complete.