IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1322 of 2008 (M/S) Satyendra Kumar, S/O Sri Ratan Singh, Director, Kishan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Bhikampur-Jeetpur, Block Laksar, District Haridwar. ……… Petitioner Versus Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uttarakhand, Dehradun and eight others. ………Respondents. Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondent no. 1-3. Date August 01, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no. 1 to 3 and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- A. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and for quashing the election of Respondent No. 5 to 9 as Delegates of Kishan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Bhikampur-Jeetpur, Block Laksar, District Haridwar. B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the election of respondent no. 5 to 9 as Delegates of Kishan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Bhikampur- Jeetpur, Block Laksar, District Haridwar, as illegal. C. To issue a writ order of direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to hold election afresh for electing the Delegates for representing Kishan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Bhikampur-Jeetpur, Block Laksar, District Haridwar in other Central Society. D. To issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. E. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the petitioner is a member of General Body of Kishan Sewa Sahkari Smiti Ltd. Bhikampur-Jeetpur, Block Laksar, District Haridwar for the last more than 10 years. He contested election for the office of Member, Committee of Management of the said Society and he was declared elected on 10-7-2008. The elected members of Committee of Management of Primary Co-operative Societies including the petitioner samiti are required to elect delegates, who may represent the Primary Cooperative Society in other Central Societies. The respondent no. 1 appointed Election Officer for holding election in the aforesaid Co-operative Society in accordance with the Uttaranchal Co-operative Societies Rules- 2004 (for short the Rules) and he declared the election programme. In the first phase, elections were to be held for electing members of Committee of Management and the date of polling for this purpose was fixed 10-7-2008. In the second phase, all formalities including polling was to be completed on 11-7-2008 in respect of representatives/delegates who were to be elected and would represent the aforesaid Co-operative Society in other Apex Co-operative Societies. Copy of election programme has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It was provided that the objections against nomination could be filed on 28-6-2008 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. and the objections were to be considered between 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. the same day. However, there were was no provision either for filing objections against the nomination for electing the delegates/representatives and for their consideration and disposal. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is aggrieved by non-consideration of his objection dated 11-7- 2008 and 17-7-2008 by the Election Officer and District Election Officer respectively. It has been contended by the petitioner that the mandatory provision of Rule 452(4) of the Rules was not adhered to by the Election Officer. The right to file objection against a nomination being a statutory right has been taken away by the Election Officer. Relevant extract of Rule 452 of the Rules reads as under:- “452. (1) A candidates may obtain nomination Form (Form “k”) from Election Officer on payment of fee as follows:- (a) Rs. 100 in case of primary co-operative societies, (b) Rs. 250 in case of central societies other than District Co-operative Banks and in case of Marketing Societies/District Bhesaj Sangh, (c) Rs. 300 in case District Co-operative Banks and Urban Co-operative Banks; (d) Rs. 500 in case of Apex Co-operative Societies, (e) Rs. 200 in case of other societies. (2) The fees received under Sub-rule (1) shall be deposited in the District Co-operative Election Account opened in the Co-operative Banks, details of which shall be furnished by the Election Officer to the District Assistant Registrar together with the election results. (3) No person shall file nomination-paper for election to fill a seat if:- (i) he is ineligible to vote, (ii) he is disqualified under the provisions of the Act, Rules or the Bye-laws of the society (4) Proposal for nomination shall be addressed to Election Officer in Form “k”. Objection to nomination shall also be addressed to him and such objections must be from a voter.” According to the petitioner, Rule 442 of the Rules provides that one person can be proposer or seconder only for one candidate, while Sri Dharamveer and Sri Nagina have signed nomination papers of five candidates as proposer and seconder. The petitioner filed objection to that effect in writing, which was received by the Election Officer, but the Election Officer did not take any decision on the ground that there is no mention in the election programme to hear the objections. It is further contended that the Register was not maintained by the Election Officer as prescribed under Rule 452(6) of the Rules and he added something more in the register by adding Item Nos. 6 and 7. Thus, the act on the part of the Election Officer is in clear violation of the provision of Rule 457(7) of the Rules. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents-States has submitted that because the election is in process, the only remedy available to the petitioner is that of election petition. According to the petitioner himself, the election was declared unanimously. Rule 457 of the Rules reads as under:- “457. (1) The election in a co-operative society shall not be called in question either by arbitration or otherwise except on the ground that- (a) the election has not been a fair election by reasons that corrupt practice, bribery or undue influence has extensively prevailed at the elections, or. (b) The result of the election has been materially affected:- (i) by improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination, or (ii) by improper reception, refusal or rejections of votes, or (iii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act, the Rules or the Byelaws of the Society. Explanation- For the purpose of this rule corruption, bribery or under influence shall have the meaning assigned to each under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. (2) A dispute relating to election shall be referred by the aggrieved party within 45 days of the declaration of the result.” Since the election process has already commenced and because the statutory remedy available to the petitioner is that of filing of an election petition, therefore, on the ground of alternate remedy available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B. S. Verma, J.) RCP