HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1229 of 2010 (M/S) Ranveer Singh S/o Naubhat Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …. Respondents Dated:- 20th July, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Manoj Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. C. Arya, the learned Brief Holder for the respondent no.1 and Mr. J. P. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3. After the election of the primary societies, a notification under Section 29 sub-clause (3) of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 read with Rule 437 (1) of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004 was issued for the election of the Committee of Management of the Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Shikarpur, Haridwar. Pursuant to the said notification, another notification dated 30th June, 2010 was also issued under Section 29 sub-clause (3) of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 read with Rule 450 sub- clause (4) of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004 for determining the number of constituencies, area of constituencies, the total number of seats to be allocated to each constituency and the number of seats to be reserved for the weaker sections of the society and also invited objections relating to the same from interested persons. The petitioner filed his objection as contemplated under Rule 450 sub- clause (7) of the Rules of 2004. Thereafter, a final list has been published under Rule 450 (7) of the Rules. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the final list, has filed the present writ petition alleging that his objection has not been considered and that the said publication was in violation of Rule 455 sub-clause (3) of the Rules and clause 8 of the bye-laws of the society. Be that as it may. The election process has started and, at this stage, the court is not inclined to interfere in the election process since it does not find any palpable error or patent breach of the mandatory provision of the Rules and, consequently, this court is not inclined to interfere in the publication of the final list under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner to question the said final list in an appropriate election petition after the election process is over. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 20.07.2010 LSR