,^ •gssss. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (0 No. 1368 of 2008 Dharam Das Gautam Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others rf And WritPetition (C) No.1597 of 2008 Radhe Shyam Sharma Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Post for pronouncement of the judgment and order on /^--11-2008 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition fO No. 1368 of 2008 Dharam Das Gautam, son of late Suklu Ram Gautam, age 37 years, Director, District Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramm Bank Mydt. Raipur (CG), resident of Village Majitiha, Block Arang, District Raipur (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Cooperative (Sahakarita), Maiitralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Telibandha, Raipur (CG). 3. Collector, Raipur, Collectorate, Raipur (CG). 4. Election Officer, Jila Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramm Bank Maryadit, Raipur (CG). Present : Shri S.S. Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Gaharwar, Additional Advocate General with Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. None for the respondent No. 4. And Writ Petition fQ No. 1597 of2008 Radhe Shyam Sharma aged about 64 years, S/o late Pt. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma R/o C-l, Samta Colony, Raipur (CG). VERSUS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Cooperative (Sahakarita), DKS Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Telibandha, Raipur (CG). 3. Collector, Raipur, Collectorate, Raipur (CG). 4. Election Officer, Jila Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramin Bank Maryadit, Raipur (CG). 5. Jila Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramin Bank Maryadit, Raipur (CG). / sf3%. 1 ~'»*'S*i ^ ^ . ' (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Gaharwar, Additional Advocate General with Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. None for the respondent No. 4 & 5. JUDGEMENT (Passed on ...i^. Aay ofNovember, 2008) 1. Both the petitions involve the same question of law, and as such both the petitions are being disposed ofby a common order. 2. In W.P.(C) No. 1368/08, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notices dated 20.02.08 (Annexure P/l) and 26.02.08 (Annexure P/2), on the ground that the same are defective and contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 43 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Society Rule, 1962 (for short 'the Rule, 1962). The petitioner, in W.P. (C) No. 1597/08, seeks a writ of Mandamus or directions to complete the election pursuant to notifications dated24.Gl.08 and 15.02.08. 3. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the election schedule for election of office bearers of the Jila Sahakari Kendriaya Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Raipur, was declared on 24.01.08. Thereafter, first meeting was held on 15.02.08 (Annexure P/3) wherein the date for filing ofnomination papers and holding the elections was declared as on 19.02.08. One Shri P.K. Mishra, Senior Branch Manager was authorized to receive the nomination papers. Thereafter, amended notification dated 20.02.08 was issued on the ground that the election scheduled to be held on 19.02.08 could not be conducted. Therefore, the elections are rescheduled to be held on 03.03.08. ,f f' V:^ 4. Shri S.S. Rajput, leamed counsel appearing for the petitionet/in W.P.(C) No.1368/08 would submit that the eariier notification dated 15.02.08 was not accordance with law as no retuming officer was notified for conducting the election, thus, subsequent amended election schedule dated 20.02.08 yvas required to be issued. Thus, the amended notification be cancelled as in the second notification also no retuming officer was notified for conducting the election, which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 43 of the Rule, 1962. 5. Per contra, Shri Tiwari, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1597/08, would submit that the election should be held as per first notification, as the election authorities cannot curtail or stop holding of election once the election has been initiated afier declaring the election programme. Thus, the respondent authorities be directed to hold the election as per initial notifications dated 24.01.08 and 15.02.08. 6. Shri A.S. Gaharwar, leamed Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 would submit that the election should not be hold on accoimt ofcertain unavoidable reasons. However, time schedule be given. The authorities undertake to hold election as expeditiously as possible. 7. Despite notice, none appeared for Election Officer and Jila Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramin Bank Maryadit, Raipur. 8. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the notifications dated 24.01.08 and 15.02.08, election schedule dated 19.02.08 as amended dated 20.02.08 could not be taken to its logical conclusion and IL^.-^L—:- r^s-p ^^^.^^M. Jila Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramin Bank Maryadit, Raipur. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Election Commission of India through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others held that wifhout interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance ofthe court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence ifthe same would be lost or desta-oyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction ofthe court. 10. Subsequently, in the matter of Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 (Gujarat Assembly Election Matter) , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed that democracy is a part of the basic structure of the constitution and periodical, free and fair election is the substratum of democracy. If there is no free and fair periodic election, it is end of democracy. ll.In view offoregoing, holdiag offree and fair election is the basic structure of the democracy. In the facts of the case, election could not be held because of one or other reasons. Despite declaration of election schedule, the concemed authority could not complete holding election of office bearers. The govemment ought to have concluded the election without any intermption for furtherance ofbasic concept ofdemocracy at the earliest. 12-Without goiug into the merits ofthe case, as to whether the first notification and further whether first schedule and/or whether second amended schedule were just, legal and proper, since about 11 months have passed, it would ' 2000 (8) SCC 216 2 2002 (8) SCC 237 /i.- ^' 1. '^iSssss^-^" not be just and proper to direct holding election on the basis of first election schedule wherein, nomination papers filed by the contesting parties, were also accepted. It is directed that the State respondent shall comply with the imdertaking given by the Additional Advocate General. 13-Leamed Additional Advocate General, on instruction, undertakes on behalf of the State that the process of election for fhe office bearers of Jila Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramin Bank Maryadit, Raipur shall commence from 16.12.2008 and the same shall be concluded as early as possible, preferably within a period ofone month. 14.In view of foregoing, the respondent authorities are directed to initiate process to hold free and fair election for office bearers of Jila Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramin Bank Maryadit, Raipur, on 16.12.2008 and the same shall be concluded within a period ofone month. 15.In view offoregoing, these petitions stand disposed ofwith the above stated direction. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri :e Sahu