•.^SSIf S%' ^>. ff ^•4 ^ s^y ^ WT ftf^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ML&SPUR W. P. (CS No. 3622 of 2007 Petitioner Narayan Shrivas Versus Respondents State of Chtsattisgarh 8s, others Post for oider on £. Jvly, 2007, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^- (£) HLG-H COURT OFCHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. fC) No. 3622 of 2007 Petitioner Nai-ayan Shrivss, son of Raina Shrivas, agcd about 60 ycare, K/o ViUage- Chiadpur, Block aad Tahsii Katgbora, Distodct Korba (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of CliIiattisgarJi, Through : the Secretary, Dcparhnent of Co- operative Sociely, D.K.S. Dhawan, MaRtralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Regiatrar, Co-operative gocieties, Ctiiiattisgafar, 'l'elibandha, By- pass Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Korba District Korba (C.G.) 4. The Election Officer, Adiwasi Seva Sahkari Saictiti. Maiyadit-Bhilai Bazar, Uistnct Korba (C.G.) SB: Hon'blc Mr. Justicc Satish K. AgBifcotr! Hhri Bhaskar 1'yasi, Advocate for thc pctitioncr. Shri Yashwaat Singh Thakiir, Qovt, Advocate for the respondents No. O R DE R { Passed on this 2.^>day ofJuly, 2007) 1. The petitioner is challenguig the legality and validity ofthe ofder dated 31.5.2007 (Annexiire P/5) whereby and whereunder the proposed efection fo be held on 28.5.2007 in Aadivasi Seva Sahkari Sainiti Maiyadit, Lainps, Bhilai Bazar, District Korba ( for short 'the SanMts^, was cauceUed. 2. The iadisputable facts, relevant for the pui-pose of this petitioa, are that the respondent No.2 declared the election programine (Annexure P/1) fi>r holding the election ofthe Sanuti. The date for receipt of the nomination form for ffae election in the Sainiti ia question was 17.5.2007. The petitioner along witb 12 ofher vinagers/meinhers filed their nomination forms before thc Sainiti <s» Incharge as emphasized by the Election Officer/Respondent No.4. On scrutiBy out of 13, 2 nommation fonns were rejecfed and 11 persons remained in the election feay. The said electioa was to be held on 28.5.2007 by fhe elecfion ofEcer/rcspondent No.-l. 3. In fhe meetiag dated 28.5.2007 law and order problem was createdj the villagers did not aUow the election officer to conduct the election on the ground fhat fbe pane! of Shiv Charan Agarwal be declared as elected. Due to uniisual situation created by the vffl^ers, wherein the election officer v»'as threatened to declare all the members of the panel of Shiv Charan Agarwal as elected, else he would not be aBowed to leave the vifl^e. 1n such circunistances the election coiild not be held and the election officer had to leave the venue ofelection. 4. The election officer mimediatelv cancelted the election prograiame vide order/letter dated 31.5.2007 (Annexure P/5) informing the Deputy/Assistant Registrar (Audit), Cooperative Societies, Korba. Bemg aggrieved the petitioner has ffled tfais pctitioa. 5. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits fhat on rejection of 2 nommation forms, the remainmg 11 persons ought to have been dec?ared as elected unopposed, as total II members were to be elected in fhe election. Secondly, the election officer has no jurisdiction to cancel fhe election. 6. Haviiig heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner as weB as leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents, it is evident fhat in view of the law and order problem crcated by the vfflagers, it was not possible for the election oCBcer to hold the election and declare remaining persons as elected unopposed. 3 That could not have been done without examining the complaiats in regard to the acceptance of tbe noinination fonns. It was stated that some nominafion forms were pendmg wsth one Vijay Rajals that coiild not have been considered before holding the election. The election. officer was not in a position to consider even noinination fonns properly, as prescribed in Ririe 4T offhe Madhya Pradesh Cooperativc Socfeties Rutes, 1962. 7. Ir. the facts and ciiicumstances ofthe case, itwas not possible for ffae election officer to condiict the election properly on the date notified by earlier election schedule. 8. The new election programme (Annexiire P/7) has already been notified, accordmg to which the last date of filing all the nonunation papers was 28.6.2007 and the election is scheduled to be held on ".7.2007. 9. lt is trite law that. once election prograniine has been notified, fhe Court should refrain itself frova interfering with tbe election prograinine except in exccptionaT circiunstances. This is not a case wfcere exceptional ciwiinistances exist. The election notified, eariier was caaceUed due to the unavoidable cirCTimstances and wittiin a period of less than two months, fhe new election programine has been notffied. Tfaus, looking fnom all angles it is not warranted to interfere with fhe election progranime (Annexure P/7), at this stage. 10. In wiew of fhe foregoing, the petition does not worth any merit, which deser/es to be and is dismissed, accordingly. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge