Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vishwas Chandar NejdarMane, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.3.2015 passed by Respondent No.2, the District Cooperative Election Officer, which rejected his objections without assigning specific reasons. The objections pertained to the inclusion of certain members in the electoral roll of Respondent No.1, Shri Chhatrapati Rajaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., a cooperative sugar factory. The petitioner contended that the authority failed to consider the specific contentions raised and passed a non-speaking order, which was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Respondent No.2 resisted the petition on preliminary grounds, arguing that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an election petition, that there were disputed questions of fact requiring a trial, and that 287 members whose names were objected to were not joined as parties. The court, after hearing counsel for both sides, rejected these preliminary objections. It held that the impugned order was patently arbitrary as it did not contain any reasons, and therefore, the writ jurisdiction could be invoked despite the availability of an alternative remedy. The court also noted that the disputed questions could be resolved based on documents without the need for a detailed trial. The court relied on several judgments, including Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingirid Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (2001) 8 SCC 509, Pundlik Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 3746, Shankar Ramlu Banpalliwar and Ayub Khan Ibrahim Khan Tighale Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2008 (2) All MR 125, Ahmednagar Zilla S.D.V. And P. Sangh Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1329, and Karbhari Maruti Agawan & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1994 Bom. 304. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed Respondent No.2 to decide the objections afresh by passing a reasoned order after hearing all concerned parties, preferably within two weeks from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Election Dispute - Rejection of Objections Without Reasons - Order dated 13.3.2015 passed by Respondent No.2-District Cooperative Election Officer rejecting objections without assigning specific reasons - Petitioner challenged the order as arbitrary and violative of natural justice - Court held that the authority must pass a speaking order giving reasons for rejection, especially when specific contentions are raised - Order set aside and matter remitted for fresh consideration (Paras 1-5). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability - Preliminary objection that writ petition is not maintainable due to availability of election petition and non-joinder of 287 members - Court held that where the impugned order is patently arbitrary and without reasons, writ jurisdiction can be exercised despite alternative remedy - Disputed questions of fact can be decided based on documents without trial (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Cooperative Election Officer's order rejecting objections without assigning specific reasons is sustainable in law and whether the writ petition is maintainable despite availability of alternative remedy of election petition.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Impugned order dated 13.3.2015 set aside. Respondent No.2 directed to decide the objections afresh by passing a reasoned order after hearing all concerned parties, preferably within two weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Natural justice requires speaking orders
- Rejection of objections without reasons is arbitrary
- Writ petition maintainable despite alternative remedy if order is perverse
- Disputed questions of fact can be decided in writ if based on documents
