2018 (9) TMI 2148 - HC - Indian Laws

Legality of notice dated 20.08.2018 calling for election for the Board of Directors and RGB members for the third respondent Society - direction to respondents 1 to 3 to issue a fresh notice for the said election strictly in accordance with the bye-laws of the third respondent Society Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder - HELD THAT - Mr. V. Sivasubramanian Retired District Judge No. 1/349 Judges Avenue Y. Pudupatti Arumbanoor Post Madurai - 625 104 Mobile No. 94430 15316 appointed as Observer. The initial remuneration for the Observer is fixed as Rs. 1, 50, 000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) and the same be paid by the third respondent Society within a week. Both the Observer and the fourth respondent - Returning Officer are hereby directed to ensure that all the voters are carrying their share certificates along with the identity cards issued by the Railway Department. The petitioners shall also issue a fresh list of dead persons within two days from today. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of election notice for Board of Directors and RGB members.
2. Inclusion of dead persons' names in the final voters list.
3. Appointment of Returning Officer facing criminal complaint.
4. Allegations of bias and irregularities in election process.
5. Delay in filing writ petitions affecting election process.
6. Compliance with election rules and procedures.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses multiple writ petitions challenging the legality of an election notice for the Board of Directors and RGB members of a cooperative society. The petitioners sought a fresh notice in accordance with bye-laws and the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Allegations were made against the Returning Officer, including bias and irregularities in the election process.

2. One petitioner raised concerns about dead persons' names in the final voters list, impacting the fairness of the election. The petition emphasized the importance of a proper voters list to ensure transparency and fairness in the electoral process.

3. The issue of the Returning Officer facing a criminal complaint was highlighted, questioning the validity of his repeated appointments. Legal arguments were presented regarding the eligibility and impartiality of the Returning Officer, emphasizing the need for a suitable replacement to avoid prejudice.

4. Allegations of bias, irregularities, and non-compliance with election rules were raised by the petitioners, urging the court to intervene for a free and fair election. The judgment discussed the legal provisions governing the conduct of elections in cooperative societies and the responsibilities of the Returning Officer.

5. The court considered the delay in filing the writ petitions, noting the advanced stage of the election process. Legal arguments were presented regarding the timing of the petitions and their potential impact on the ongoing electoral procedures.

6. The judgment also addressed compliance with election rules and procedures, including the identification requirements for voters entering the polling station. The court appointed an Observer to oversee the election process, ensuring adherence to legal requirements and addressing concerns raised by the petitioners.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petitions, appointing an Observer and issuing directions to ensure the integrity of the election process. The judgment emphasized the importance of following legal provisions and conducting elections in a transparent and fair manner to uphold the principles of cooperative governance.