- (1.) HEARD Sri Pradip Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 5, Sri N.K. Giri for the respondent No. 2, Sri Nripendra Mishra for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Sri H.R. Misra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Pandey, for the respondent No. 7. The Petitioner No. 2 had earlier come up in Writ Petition No. 34244 of 2014 disputing the membership and the electoral College on certain grounds. The said writ petition was disposed of on 9.7.2014 with the observations that such dispute of membership shall be considered at the stage as provided for under the Rules namely the U.P. State Cooperative Societies Election Rules, 2014. The judgment is extracted hereunder: "This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the election of petitioner's Co -operative Society namely Respondent No. 5 should be held only from amongst the valid members and not by the members, who had been enrolled by the Administrator. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Administrator has no power to induct new members, as per a series of decisions. An interim order dated 3.9.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 46865 of 2009, which had been passed by this Court after following the decisions of the Supreme Court, has been brought on record. Thus the apprehension of the petitioner is that the election, which is now to be held, in terms and direction issued by High Court on 16.1.2014 in Writ -C - No. 22915 of 2013, is likely to be held on an incorrect voter list. Sri N.K. Giri who appears for the respondent No. 2 Commissioner, Election Commission U.P., Co -operative Societies and Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Awas Vikas Parishad submit, that after direction dated 16.1.2014, elections could not be held on account of non validity of the Rules that have now been notified on 19.5.2014. Consequently the election should now be held as per the aforesaid Rules. A perusal of the Rules indicates that Clause 12 requires publication of an interim voter list and Clause 13 also specifies the manner in which it has to be notified. So far as the objection to such an interim voter list is concerned, provisions for disposal of any objection is provided for in Rules 34 to 36 and then Rule 37 and 38 provide for the manner of publication of final voter list. We are therefore of the opinion that it is open to any aggrieved person to file objections before the competent authority who shall decide the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the U.P. State Cooperative Societies Election Rules 2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that there were only 1007 members who are entitled to participate in the election and no one else. This issue shall also be considered if raised as per the rules aforesaid. With the aforesaid observations the petition is disposed of."
(2.) THE petitioners again filed Writ Petition No. 44532 of 2014 contending that there is every likelihood that no decision will be taken and the election will be held without deciding the issue of membership and electoral college. The second writ petition was dismissed on 26.8.2014; the judgment whereof is extracted herein below: "Heard Sri Pradip Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for 1 and 5, Sri H.R. Mishra, learned senior counsel appears for respondent No. 7 and Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned advocate, appears on behalf of Avas Vikas Parishad. The petitioner had earlier filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34244 of 2014 (Ishwar Singh Nirvan v. State of U.P. and 4 others), the same was disposed of by the following judgement: "This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the election of petitioner's Co -operative Society namely Respondent No. 5 should be held only from amongst the valid members and not by the members, who had been enrolled by the Administrator. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Administrator has no power to induct new members, as per a series of decisions. An interim order dated 3.9.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 46865 of 2009, which had been passed by this Court after following the decisions of the Supreme Court, has been brought on record. Thus the apprehension of the petitioner is that the election, which is now to be held, in terms and direction issued by High Court on 16.1.2014 in Writ -C - No. 22915 of 2013, is likely to be held on an incorrect voter list. Sri N.K. Giri who appears for the respondent No. 2 Commissioner, Election Commission U.P., Co -operative Societies and Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Awas Vikas Parishad submit, that after direction dated 16.1.2014, elections could not be held on account of non validity of the Rules that have now been notified on 19.5.2014. Consequently the election should now be held as per the aforesaid Rules. A perusal of the Rules indicates that Clause 12 requires publication of an interim voter list and Clause 13 also specifies the manner in which it has to be notified. So far as the objection to such an interim voter list is concerned, provisions for disposal of any objection is provided for in Rules 34 to 36 and then Rule 37 and 38 provide for the manner of publication of final voter list. We are therefore of the opinion that it is open to any aggrieved person to file objections before the competent authority who shall decide the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the U.P. State Cooperative Societies Election Rules 2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that there were only 1007 members who are entitled to participate in the election and no one else. This issue shall also be considered if raised as per the rules aforesaid. With the aforesaid observations the petition is disposed of." Sri Pradip Kumar, learned counsel, submits that without considering the objections filed by the petitioners with regard to the genuine members of the society, the respondent No. 5 has issued a notification for taking a decision after objection to define the limits of constituencies. We cannot apprehend any such action by the Election Commission to declare the electoral college without deciding the objections as directed by us in the judgement dated 9.7.2014 referred to hereinabove. The impugned notification for delimitation does not give rise to any cause relating to the electoral college which is yet to be determined. Consequently, the apprehension is misplaced. The Election Commission shall be obliged to decide the objections which have been stated by the petitioners in this regard. The writ petition being an effectively second petition for the same is not maintainable and is dismissed."
(3.) THIS writ petition has now been filed after the constituency has been determined in exercise of powers under Rules 24, 27 and 28 of the 2014 Rules aforesaid. Learned Counsel submits that while determining the constituency, certain claims on merits have been incorrectly decided and secondly, the determination has been made on the asking of a person, who was not the Secretary of the Society. Sri Pradip Kumar submits that the District Election Officer has erroneously treated this to be not the stage for determining membership and to the contrary has published a Notice for holding of the elections with 1439 Members as against the valid 1007 Members. According to Sri Pradip Kumar, the dispute stands finally decided without considering the objection of the petitioners.;