Allowed

Jagabandhu Das v. Election Officer, Tentulidihi Coop. Society

Orissa HC5 Dec 2016WP(C)/2369/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a direction for vote recounting declared after election results were announced, the High Court held the order a gross violation of the Orissa Cooperative Societies (Election to the Committee) Rules. The Court set aside the illegal direction and disposed of the petition. Disputed facts regarding manipulation were held inadmissible in a writ. The Court dismissed allega

What did the court decide?

The impugned direction for recounting of votes in Annexure-6 was set aside and quashed as it appeared illegal.

Heard Mr. S.K. Nayak-2, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.K. Satpathy, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Mr. Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel for t he opposite party No.3.

In assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that th e impugned actions have been taken in a clear contravention of the provisions contained in the Cooperative Societies (Election to the Committee) Rules and broadly speaks that after complet ion of the Election, the counting of the votes was taken place in terms of the Orissa Cooperat ive Societies (Election to the Committee) Rules and following the procedures contained in Rule 41 & 42 of the Rules. After completion of the counting, the result had also been declared fol lowing the provision contained in Rule 46.

It is alleged by Sri Nayak, learned counsel for petitioner that after declaration of t he result by the Election Officer, there has been illegal acceptance of an application for rec ounting by the private opposite party No.2 and resulting there has been illegal direction for recounting of the votes in the Office of the District Election Officer. As appears from the An nexure-6, the above direction was given on 26.1.2015 while receiving the complaint on 26.1.201 5, admittedly after the result in the Election was declared on 25.1.2015. It is alleged that t he District Election Officer had no such authority.

Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the re sult was already declared, there was no occasion on the part of the District Election Officer to interfere in the matter except leaving the parties to raise their dispute in an

election dispute provided under Section 67(B) of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act. During course of argument, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppo sed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner involving no such applica tion or complaint received by either the Election Officer or the District Election Officer on 25.1.2015 and the complaint if any, have been made after the result was declared, is out and o ut false.

Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court prima facie finding that there is breach of provisions in the matter of direction for recounting of votes and after goi ng through the averments made in the counter affidavit, directed the learned State Counsel to produce the records involving the application at the instance of the opposite party No.2 and t he consequential orders passed by the competent authority thereon.

Today, during course of hearing, learned State Counsel produced the records concerning the application and on perusal of the records, this Court finds though this application was p repared on 25.1.2015 but as per the endorsement at the top in the first instance, it clearly i ndicates about acceptance of the same on 26.1.2015 i.e. admittedly after declaration of result s on 25.1.2015 and then followed the direction for recounting to be done in the Office of the concerned District Election Officer, Bhadrak. From the signature, it appears the date put ther ein at the end is corrected to be 26.1.2016. Both the dates at the top of the said direction a nd at the bottom of the direction if taken on 26.1.2015 then there appears, there is clear dev iation of the provisions contained in the Orissa Cooperative Societies (Election to the Commit tee) Rules, 1965 and no such application should have been entertained after

declaration of the results except leaving it open to the parties to go for Election Dispute. It is at this stage learned counsel for the opposite party raises objection to the eff ect that for the admissions in the counter affidavit and for the correction in the date giving direction for recounting of the votes, it appears there has been some manipulation in maintai ning the dates behind back of the petitioner. Looking to the correction in the date of the dir ection, this Court finds, for the objections raised involving the disputed question, the same cannot be adjudicated upon in deciding a writ petition. The opposite party had a clear remedy of Election dispute and for involvement of the disputed questions of fact, this Court declines to accept the request made by the opposite party No.2.

Now coming to merit of the case, this Court from perusal of the records produced befor e this Court and looking to the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner that no such application was received by the competent authority before 26.1.2015, finds the impugned order under Annexure-6 has been passed in gross violation of the provision contained in Rules , 1965. Consequently, holds the impugned direction contained in Annexure-6 as illegal and whil e allowing this writ petition, this Court sets aside the direction for recounting appears in A nnexure-6.

Jagabandhu Das v. Election Officer, Tentulidihi Coop. Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagabandhu Das v. Election Officer, Tentulidihi Coop. Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sujata Mishra Vs Collector,Khurda

Amina Bibi Vs State and Ors.

Asharam Kuda Vs Consolidation Officr

Binodini Sadual Vs Ranjit Kumar Mohanty

Utkal Postal and R.M.S. Co.Op Society Vs Bipin Bihari Kar

Mahalaxmi Promotor and Developer Vs Tahasildar Cuttack Sadar