HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRiT PETITION (C i N0.1652/2010 4 6 7 Rajeev Vishwakarma, aged about 40 years, Son of Late Shri Pyare Lal Vishwakarma, Resident of Durga Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Rai Dhar Netam, aged about 22 years, Son of Shri Charadhar Netam, Resident of Halba Ka Choura, Jagdalpur, District Bastar(C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Co-operative Societies Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Shri M.L. Nandanwar, Sub Auditor, Nirvachana Adhikari, Posted in Office of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagdaipur, District Bastar (C.G.) Nagrik Griha Nirman Sahkari Maryadit, Jagdalpur, through the President, situated af Urban Area, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)_ Shri Tushar 'r^nta Bore, aged about 75 years, Son of Late Shri R.C.Bore, Residentof Brindaban Bag, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Shri Koushal Chandra Khatri, aged about 40 years, Son of Shri Padum Chandra Khatri, Resident of Brandavan Coiony, Jagdaipur, District Bastar(C.G.) Ani! Baveja, aged about 52 years Son of Late Shri Santa Ram Baveja, Resident of Brandavan Bag, Jagdaipur, District Bastar (C;G.) Shri Sachin Chandra Mandal, aged about 62 years, Son of Shri -'^ ^ WRIT PET1T10N (C } N0.1652/2010 Lafe Ganesh Mandal, Resident of Brandavan Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 8 Dr. Pradeep Pandey, aged about 55 years, Son of Shri R.P.Pandey, Resident of Brandavan Colony, jagdaipur, District Bastar (C.G.) 9 Ku. Pushpa Soni, aged about 40 years, D/o Shri Rajvanti Soni, Resident of Kumhar Para, Jagdaipur, District Bastar (C.G.) Ku. Lipika Vishwas, aged about 51 years, D/o Shri M.K. Vishwas, Resident of Brandavan Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 11 Smt. Sudha Jain, aged about 52 years, Wife of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Jain, Resident of Brandavan Cotony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 12 Ram Prasad Kashyap, aged about 55 years, Son of Lakshman Kashyap, Resident of Dongari Para, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r. M.D. Sharma, Counset forthe petitioners. Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/ respondent No1 on advance copy, QRAL ORDER Heard. The petitioners, two members of Nagarik Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Jagdalpur (for short "the Society"), have filed this petition for issuing a writ declaring the entire process of election of the Society as nuli and void and ^ "• •".S,;:t». ;^S^I" $^ WRIT PETITiON (C l N0.1652/2010 also for quashing all the election results dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure P/6). Respondent No.3- the Society, issued the election programme under Annexure P/1. According to the said programme, the eiection for members of Managing Committee took place and the resuit was declared in the prescribed proforma on 31.3.2010. After the said date,a writ petition was filed by the same petitioners bearing W.P.(C) No. 1473/2010, which came up for hearing before this Bench on 06.04.2010. On the said date, after arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for withdrawa! of the said writ petition and following order was passed by this Court: "Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to challenge the election before the appropriate forum and to avail other appropriate remedies available to the petitioners in accordance with law. Permission granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioners." The said writ petition was filed for almost similar reliefs. Mr. M.D. Sharma, learned counsel forthe petitioner, refemng to the judgments rendered in the matters of Bhupendra Kumar Jain vs. Y.S. Dharmadhikari. Advocate-Generai, 1976 M.P.L.J. 223 and Radhev Shvam Sharma vs. Chairman. Sewa/Brihdakar Sakhari Samiti. Deedwana Oli. Gwaiior & others. 1989 R.N. 99, argues that since the Society was a superceded one, no election was possibie for the said Society. 1 have heard learned counse! for the petitioners at length and have also perused the records ofthe writ petition. H s ,r •s..«K;;:< ..i 4 WRIT PETITION (C 1 N0.1652/2010 <^ In Bhupendra Kumar Jain (Supra), the matter was in reiation to Bar Counsel of Madhya Pradesh Eiection Rules,1968. The writ petition was entertained on the ground that the entire election was challenged and the High Court observed in para 9 that since the petltions were admitted for hearing by that Court and were not rejected in limine on the ground that an alternative remedy was open to the petitioner, it would not be proper to throw them out on this ground at that stage. This means that earlier the petitions were entertained for hearing and were not rejected on the ground of alterative efficacious remedy, therefore, at the final stage, because of their admissions at the initial stage, the High Court deemed it appropriate to pass an order on merits. In Radhev Shvam Sharma (Supra), the Division Bench of M.P. High Court held that when the elections are going on and there is a dispute in respect of the electlon, an election petition can be filed after completion of election before the Registrar under Section 64(1) (2)(v) and the writ petition cannot be entertained under Articie 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India during the intervening period. The High Court further held that it is only when that the election officer has done any act which is not contemplated under the Act and the Rules and he has exercised powers for which the Act does not authorise him or he acts malafide to defeat the provisions of the Act and he thereby acts without jurisdiction by exercising powers not envisaged under the Act and the Rules, then, it may be possible to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute that an alternative efficacious remedy is avaiiable to the petitioners under Section 64(1) (2) (v) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. There is aiso no '^. WRIT PETITION (C ) N0.1652/2010 ilii dispute that the eiection of the Chairman and Vice Chairman has not taken place tiil date in accordance with the election programme published under Annexure P/1. Therefore, presently the election is going on and nothing has reached to the flnality. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the earlier writ petition was withdrawn on 06.04.2010, which was filed aimost on the same grounds and similar reliefs were sought, 1 am not inclined to entertain this subsequent writ petition for further hearing. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge llii