Petitioners filed a writ to remove a member from a cooperative society's electoral roll, citing pending criminal cases and residence shifts. The court dismissed the petition due to lack of objections to provisional lists and failure to prove court cognizance of offences.
The writ petition and the stay petition were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
: O R D E R :
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7335/2015
Kalu & Ors.
vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order :: 14th July, 2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Mr. Ankur Mathur, for the petitioners.
BY THE COURT:
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking removal of name of respondent No. 5 – Smt. Geeta Patel from the list of eligible Members of respondent – Kachher Dugdh Utpadak, Sahakari Samiti Ltd., ('the Society') for election and other purposes.
The petitioners, who are members of the Society have filed the present writ petition with the averments that the tenure of the elected body of the Society for managing affairs has expired and after the expiry of stipulated period, the election of the new Committee in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 ('the Act') has been declared on 25.06.2015 and the schedule has been published for the said purpose; a provisional list of Members of the Society was published by the Electoral Officer on 30.06.2015; it is claimed that respondent No. 5 is not eligible to remain a Member of the Society as a first information report (FIR) was submitted against her before the Anti Corruption Bureau regarding allotment of milk booth and she was caught red handed and remained in
2/3
judicial custody for four days and a criminal case has been registered against her, which is pending before the competent criminal court; allegations have been made that respondent No. 5 has shifted her residence from Kachher to Udaipur and in view of the pending criminal case and she has shifted her residence, she was rendered ineligible to remain a Member of the Society.
Based on the said averments, the petitioners have challenged the inclusion of name of respondent No. 5 in the final electoral role of the Society (Annexure-6).
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No. 5 is disqualified to be Member of the Society and, therefore, her inclusion in the list of Members deserves to be set aside/removed; reference has been made to the provisions of Section 28(8) of the Act.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material placed on record.
From the material placed on record, it is apparent that the provisional electoral roll was published on 30.06.2015 and objections were called by the Electoral Officer, however, no objections were filed by the petitioners regarding the inclusion of name of respondent No. 5 in the final electoral roll; further Section 28(8) of the Act relied on by the petitioners requires that a person against whom a competent court has taken cognizance for an offence punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code is ineligible, however, in that context also the petitioners have failed to produce any material to show that the cognizance has been taken by the competent criminal court
3/3
regarding any of the offences enumerated in Section 28(8) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced material, which contains order-sheets dated 02.07.2012 to 14.01.2013, which also does not indicate that any cognizance has been taken by the competent criminal court.
On account of failure of the petitioners to raise objections before the Electoral Officer and further to produce any material in support of disqualification of respondent No. 5 under Section 28(8) of the Act, no case is made out in favour of the petitioners.
In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI), J.
A.K.Chouhan/- 114
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner challenged the fair and proper procedure regarding the nomination of a member in the electoral roll.
Whether the petitioner established that a competent court has taken cognizance of an offence to invoke disqualification under the Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kalu & Ors.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
