# Ramakant Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 274
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-01-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25977 of 2005
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Dilip Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramakant-singh-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40439
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Election management of cooperative
society-voter list published and final- the
name of petitioners society excluded as
it was defaulter- once the date for
election
notified-
court
should
not
intervene to stop the election process-
otherwise grave in justice would be done
to the crores of other voters- proper
remedy file election petition.

Held- Para 9

If this was allowed to be done, no
election would ever take place because
someone or the other would always find
some excuse to move the Court and stall
the elections. The importance of holding
elections at regular intervals cannot be
overemphasized. If holding of elections
was allowed to stall on the complaint of
a few individuals then grave injustice
would be done to crores of other voters
who
had
a
right
to
elect
their
representatives
to
the
democratic
bodies.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1995 Alld-57
AIR 1992 SC-64
AIR 1988 SC-616
1982 (2) SCC-218
1987 SC-1577
AIR 1988 SC-66
1988 AWC (i) 503
AIR 1994 SC-1673
1998 (8) SCC-703
2000 (8) SCC-216
AIR 2004 SC- 3600

## Text

274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
necessity further, as the Company may
change the location of its registered
office. In the instant case, registered
office of the Company is at Lucknow.
Jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench in
Company
matters
ousted
by
the
Notification dated 15.07.1949 has been
restored
vide
Notification
dated
05.08.1975. However, it is only upto the
stage of winding up proceedings, and
subsequent thereto, the case is required to
be decided by this Court. This position is
crystal clear from the Notifications dated
05.08.1975, 04.01.2003 and 14.01.2003.
The petitions require to be returned to the
petitioners to be presented before the
Lucknow Bench.

28. In view of the above, we are of
the opinion that the instant petition is not
maintainable before this Court as the
registered office of the Company is
situated within the territorial jurisdiction
of the Lucknow Bench. Reference is
answered accordingly.

Send the papers back to the learned
Judge.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25977 of 2005

Ramakant Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri J.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri C.K. Rai
Sri N. Misra
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Election management of cooperative
society-voter list published and final- the
name of petitioners society excluded as
it was defaulter- once the date for
election
notified-
court
should
not
intervene to stop the election process-
otherwise grave in justice would be done
to the crores of other voters- proper
remedy file election petition.

Held- Para 9

If this was allowed to be done, no
election would ever take place because
someone or the other would always find
some excuse to move the Court and stall
the elections. The importance of holding
elections at regular intervals cannot be
overemphasized. If holding of elections
was allowed to stall on the complaint of
a few individuals then grave injustice
would be done to crores of other voters
who
had
a
right
to
elect
their
representatives
to
the
democratic
bodies.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1995 Alld-57
AIR 1992 SC-64
AIR 1988 SC-616
1982 (2) SCC-218
1987 SC-1577
AIR 1988 SC-66
1988 AWC (i) 503
AIR 1994 SC-1673
1998 (8) SCC-703
2000 (8) SCC-216
AIR 2004 SC- 3600

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S Chauhan, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for
a
direction
to
the
District
Collector/Returning Officer to include
certain members for the purpose of
participation in the election of the District
1 All] Ramakant Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others
275
Cooperative Bank Limited, Ghazipur and
to quash the order dated 23.03.2005.

2. The facts and circumstances
giving rise to this case are that there is a
Cooperative Society, namely Sadhan
Sahakari Limited, Mania Block Bhadaura,
District Ghazipur. On 23rd March, 2005,
a provisional voters' list was notified for
the purposes of holding election of the
Cooperative Societies which did not
contain the name of the petitioners'
Society, as it had been shown as a
defaulter. The said list had been made
final and the petitioners' Society has not
been included in the voter list for the
reason that vide order dated 23.03.2005,
the said Society has been shown to be a
defaulter. Hence, this petition.

3. Shri J.P. Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioners has submitted that the
findings
recorded
by
the
authority
concerned in its order dated 23.03.2005
that the Society is a defaulter, is factually
not correct. Petitioners' Society is not a
defaulter.
Therefore,
the
petitioners'
Society should be permitted to participate
in the forthcoming election.

4. Shri C.K. Rai, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents has
submitted that once the notification of the
election has been issued, the writ Court
has to keep its hands off and should not
entertain a writ petition particularly for
the purpose of inclusion or exclusion of
any one's name in the voter list. If the
petitioners are so aggrieved, they must
wait for the result of the election and
challenge the same subsequently before
the appropriate forum but no relief can be
granted at this stage and the petition is
liable to be dismissed.

5. We have considered the rival
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

The issue involved herein is no more
res-integra.

6. In Suresh Kumar Tyagi Vs.
Krishna Kumar & Ors., AIR 1995 Alld.
57, while dealing with the election for the
Committee of Management of a Credit
Society under the provisions of U.P.
Cooperative
Societies
Act,
1965
(hereinafter called the Act 1965) and the
U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1986
(hereinafter called the Rules 1968), this
Court held that the general principles of
election law are applicable in the case of
Cooperative
Society
and
once
the
notification has been issued, the Court
cannot
interfere.
The
only
remedy
available to the person aggrieved is to
challenge the result showing that it has
materially affected by action or inaction
on the part of the authority concerned.
While deciding the said case, reliance had
been
placed
on
large
number
of
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court
particularly in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs.
Returning
Officer
Namakkal
Constituency, AIR 1952 SC 64; S.T.
Muthusami Vs. K. Natarajan, AIR 1988
SC 616; A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman Vs.
Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 218;
Dhartipakar Madanlal Agarwal Vs. Sri
Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1987 SC 1577; and
Gujarat University Vs. N.U. Rajguru, AIR
1988 SC 66. In all the aforesaid cases, it
has categorically been held that the High
Court should be very cautious and slow
and should keep its hands off and should
not generally interfere with the election
process. The person who is aggrieved by
any order of any authority, for any reason,
whatsoever, must wait till the election
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
result is declared and the only remedy for
him is to challenge the same by filing the
election petition before the appropriate
forum. The said judgment was rendered
interpreting the provisions of Rule 444-C
of the Rules 1968, which are involved in
the case in hand.

7. Another Division Bench of this
Court in R.P. Singh Baghel Vs. City
Magistrate/Election Officer, Allahabad
District Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors.,
1988 (1) AWC 503, considering similar
provisions followed the earlier judgment
of this Court in Suresh Kumar Tyagi
(supra), and the Court held as under:-

"For the reasons stated above, we are
of the considered view that this is not a fit
case to exercise jurisdiction of this Court
to interdict and retard the election process
in its midway. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed."

8. In the said case, the grievance had
been raised that the petitioner therein and
similarly situated delegates of Primary
Societies, whose names had been included
in the provisional voters' list, had been
arbitrarily and illegally excluded from the
final voters' list, while some other
persons, who were disqualified to be
delegates to the general body of the
Central Society, had been arbitrarily and
illegally included in that final voters' list.
The Court held that the only remedy
available to the person aggrieved in such
a fact situation is under Section 70 of the
Act 1965 after conclusion of the election.
The Court held that in such a case, the
writ Court should not interfere and for
that purpose reliance had also been placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde Vs.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 SC 1673,
wherein it had been observed as under:-

"......there is no constitutional bar in
the exercise of the jurisdiction in respect
of election to local bodies. It is equally
sound exercise of discretion to bear in
mind the policy of the Legislature to have
the dispute decided speedily through the
machinery of election petition and decline
to exercise its writ jurisdiction in election
dispute. Once the election process was set
in motion according to law, any illegality
or irregularity committed while the
election process is in progress or the
conduct of the election is vitiated by any
illegality or irregularity in its process, the
proper remedy is to lay action before the
Tribunal constituted under that Act by
means of an election petition and have the
dispute adjudicated without the election
process being interdicted or retarded in its
midway."

9. Anugrah Narain Singh Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 303 was a
case relating to Municipal elections in this
State. Barely one week before the voting
was scheduled to commence, in the writ
petitions complaining of defects in the
electoral
rolls
and
delimitation
of
constituencies and arbitrary reservation of
constituencies for the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes,
the High Court passed interim order
stopping the election process. The Apex
Court
quashed
interim
orders
and
observed that if the election is imminent
or well under way, the Court should not
intervene to stop the election process. If
this was allowed to be done, no election
would ever take place because someone
or the other would always find some
excuse to move the Court and stall the
elections. The importance of holding
1 All] Fakharuddin V. Nagar Palika, Sikandrabad and others
277
elections at regular intervals cannot be
overemphasized. If holding of elections
was allowed to stall on the complaint of a
few individuals then grave injustice
would be done to crores of other voters
who
had
a
right
to
elect
their
representatives to the democratic bodies.

10. This view stands fortified by
judgments of the Apex Court in C.
Subrahmanyam Vs. K. Ramanjaneyullu &
Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 703; Election
Commission of India Vs Ashok Kumar &
Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 216; Ram Phal Kundu
Vs. Kamal Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 1657;
and Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam,
AIR 2004 SC 3600. Thus, it is settled
legal proposition that once the notification
for holding elections is issued, the Court
should not interdict and retard the election
in the midway, nor it should interfere with
the election process. It is not permissible
in law that High Court can interfere with
the election process having the effect of
interrupting, obstructing or protracting the
same. The party aggrieved has to wait till
the conclusion of the election process and
challenge the result of the election by
filing the appropriate petition before the
appropriate forum.

11. The case in hand is squarely
covered by the judgments of this Court,
referred to above. It has been held that
writ should not be issued for inclusion or
exclusion of a person in or from the
voters' list. We do not see any justification
to take a different view, rather judicial
discipline and decorum warrant to follow
the same. Petition is dismissed. However,
petitioners shall be at liberty to approach
the appropriate forum for appropriate
relief after the elections stand concluded.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3129 of 2005

Fakharuddin

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Nagar Palika Parishad, Sikandrabad and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.K. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Prem Chandra
Sri Yasharth

U.P. Government Servant Determination
of date of birth Rules- r. 4- correction in
date of birth- Petitioner appoin0ted as
class 4th employee- in Nagar Palika
Sikandrabad- appointed on 1.9.70- in
service book date of birth entered as
21.1.48- as such he achieved the age of
superannuation on 21.1.08 e.g. 31.1.05-
by impugned order dated 21.11.04-
Noticed
retiring
the
petitioner
on
28.2.05- the basis of alteration in the
date of birth is medical certificate issued
in the year 1975- held- even the
employer can not unilaterally change the
date of birth as recorded in service book-
at the fag end of service.
Held- Para 3
Just as an employee is not entitled to
have his date of birth changed at the fag
end of his career, the employer also
cannot be permitted to change the date
of birth of its employee without there
being any concrete evidence for the
same and that too, at the fag end of his
career. The certificate on the basis of
which the respondents are claiming that
the petitioner has attained the age of 60
years on 7.2.2005, had been issued in
the year 1975 and was on the record of
the Nagar Palika Parishad. After 30