V.K.Kbanoa, J. - (1.) Respondent No. 1 is a Co-operative Society known as Mawana Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Mawana (hereinafter referred to as the Society). The Managing Committee of the Society is constituted by 14 Directors who under Rule 444-B of the Rules framed under the Cooperative Societies Act elect Chairman and Vice-Chairman. According to the procedure laid down under the rules, on 19th January, 1988, petitioner, respondent Nos. 3 and 12 were declared to have been elected as Directors of the Society to constitue Managing Committee. Respondent No. 2, the Election Officer, thereafter took steps for getting the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Society elected and an election in which the Directors participated was held. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 were contestants for the post of Chairman. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 each received seven valid votes in the said election. The Election Officer thereafter proceeded to draw lots by Parchi purporting to follow the procedure of Rule 444 (v). In the said draw of lots a Parchi was drawn and the Parchi was found to be in favour: of respondent No. 3. The Election Officer, therefore declared respondent No. 3 to have been elected as Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Society. In this writ petition a prayer has been made for quashing the election of respondent No. 3 as Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Society on the ground that Rule 444 (v) of the rules is ultra vires of the Act inasmuch as the provisions of the Act and Rules do not give any power to the Election Officer to supplement the rule and decide as to who will be deemed to have been elected after the drawing of lot. The precise argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Rule ought to have provided as to in whose favour an additional vote will be deemed to have been cast after the drawing of the lots.
(2.) Reliance has been placed on the provisions of Section 65 of the Represenation of the People Act which provides that in case of equality of votes, a lot will be drawn and the person in whose favour the lot is drawn will be deemed to have received an additional vote. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner similar provision has been made in Rule 21 - B of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules and Rule 67 of the U. P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Members) Order, 1964. However, under Rule 16 of the rules framed under the U. P. Kshetra Samitis and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961, it has been provided that the person in whose favour the lot is drawn would be deemed to have been eliminated from the election.
(3.) On the basis of the provisions of the aforesaid Acts providing procedure in the case of equality of votes in elections it has been argued that the provisions of the rule for drawing lots by the Election Officer itself is not a sufficient procedure for the purposes of finding out in whose favour an additional vote should be counted by drawing lots unless the rule would have further provided as in other Acts that cither the vote would be counted in favour of the person in whose favour the lot is drawn or the person in whose favour the lot has been drawn would be deemed to have been eliminated. It has been urged that neither the Act nor the Rules give power to the Election Officer to supplement the aforesaid rule and thus the election held under the Rule is liable to be quashed.;