IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1680 of 2008 (M/S) Sam Ram S/o Sri Sher Ram R/o Village Chapar, P.O. and Tehsil Betal Ghal, Distt. Nainital. . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Registrar, Co-operative Societies Uttarakhand, Almora. 3. S.D.M. / Returning Officer District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Haldwani, Distt. Nainital. ...…………. Respondents Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged rejection of his nomination vide order dated 23.09.2008, passed by Returning Officer / Sub Divisional Magistrate (respondent No. 3), in connection 2 with the election of membership of Nainital District Co- operative Bank Limited, Haldwani, District Nainital. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste and Constituency No. 4 (Betal Ghat) for the election of membership of the Nainital District Co-operative Bank Limited, Haldwani, is reserved for Scheduled Castes. It is further contended that the rejection of nomination of the petitioner, who was member of the Scheduled Caste, is illegal. 4) Learned counsel for the respondents drew attention of this Court to Rule 81(1)(a) of the Uttaranchal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2004, and argued that since Hemanti Devi is elected as a delegate for reserved seat for woman from Chapar Sadhan Sehkari Samiti Limited, as such, the rejection of nomination of the petitioner is proper. 5) Since, the process of election is already on and the elections are scheduled to be held on 28 / 29th of September 2008, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage with the election process. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the election by filing election petition after the elections are over, this court is of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 3 6) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed summarily with the observation, as above. (Stay Application No. 6326 of 2008 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. September 25, 2008. H.Negi