Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Neeraj Tripathi for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for first, second and fourth respondents, Sri Nikhil Kumar Yadav on behalf of third respondent, Sri Vikash Srivastava and Sri Rajeev Joshi for fifth and six respondents.
(2.) In both writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 23.9.2016 passed by the second respondent i.e. Cooperative Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow in Appeal No.51/2016 (Jitendra Kumar vs. the Chief Election Commissioner & ors) and for direction commanding the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioners as elected members/office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Housing Society in any manner.
(3.) The leading writ petition was entertained on 30.9.2016 and the Court had proceeded to accord an interim order in favour of the petitioners to the following effect:- "Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri J.P. Pandey for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1, 2 and 4, Sri Nikhil Kumar Yadav on behalf of respondent no. 3, Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Sri P.C. Srivastava and Sri Vikash Srivastava who have appeared for respondent no. 5. The elections of the Committee of Management of the Society and its office bearers were held on 28.02.2015. The said elections were challenged by four different persons by filing separate election petitions. The aforesaid election petitions were dismissed on 25.01.2016. One of the petitioners, Jitendra Kumar preferred an appeal against the dismissal of the election petitions. The said appeal has been allowed by the impugned order dated 23.09.2016 by the Cooperative Tribunal U.P. Lucknow. In assailing the aforesaid order, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is in violation of the principals of natural justice. The petitioners whose election as office bearer of the managing committee of the Society have been set aside were not arrayed in appeal and were not given any notice or opportunity of hearing. The other side has contended that the appeal was contested by the Secretary of the Society and under Section 31 of the Cooperative Societies Act, the Secretary is the whole sole administrator of the Society. It has also been submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by not giving opportunity of hearing to them and that giving of opportunity would have been a futile exercise. Notwithstanding the above, since the elections of the office bearers to the Society have been set aside and they were not party to the appeal or election petitions, the impugned order prima facie appears to be against the principals of natural justice. All the respondents are directed to file counter affidavit within three weeks. One weeks thereafter is allowed to the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit. List in the week commencing 2nd November, 2016. Until further orders of this Court, the operation of the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by Appellate Tribunal,U.P. Lucknow, shall remain stayed.";