Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, nineteen individuals who are members of the Nashik District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the election programme for the bank's board of directors. The election was scheduled to be held on 21st March 2021. The petitioners alleged that the voters' list prepared by the respondent authorities contained irregularities, including the inclusion of ineligible voters and the exclusion of eligible members. They sought a direction to stay the election and to revise the voters' list. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, the Commissioner for Cooperation, the Divisional Joint Registrar, the bank, and the Reserve Bank of India, opposed the petition, contending that the election process had already commenced and that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, by way of an election petition. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the election notification had been issued and the process was underway. Relying on settled legal principles, the court held that once the election process has started, the High Court should not interfere under Article 226, especially when an alternative efficacious remedy is available. The court noted that the petitioners could raise their grievances regarding the voters' list in an election petition under Section 152 of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy. The court also directed that if such an election petition is filed, the cooperative court shall decide it expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of filing.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Election Process - Interference by Writ Court - Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Sections 152, 154 - The petitioners challenged the election programme of the Nashik District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. on grounds of alleged irregularities in the voters' list. The court held that once the election process has commenced, the High Court should not interfere under Article 226, and the petitioners have an alternative remedy under Section 152 of the Act by filing an election petition before the cooperative court. The petition was dismissed with liberty to avail alternative remedy. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Alternative Remedy - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court reiterated that the existence of an alternative efficacious remedy is a bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, especially in election matters where the election process is at an advanced stage. The petitioners were directed to approach the cooperative court under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court can interfere with the election process of a cooperative society under Article 226 of the Constitution after the election programme has been declared, and whether the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The court held that it would not interfere with the election process under Article 226 as the election notification had been issued and an alternative remedy under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was available. The petitioners were granted liberty to file an election petition before the cooperative court, which was directed to decide it expeditiously, preferably within three months.
Law Points
- Election process under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
- 1960 cannot be interfered with by writ court after election notification is issued
- alternative remedy under Section 152 of the Act is available
- challenge to election process must be raised before the election authority or cooperative court
