Title: Mukta Sharma versus UOI
+ W.P.(C) 16258/2023, CM APPLs. 65412/2023 & 66888/2023
Decided on- 23rd December, 2023
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Facts of the case:
The petitioner has filed a petition requesting the court to quash the election notification and circular issued by respondents 2 and 3, and to direct them to issue a fresh election notification in accordance with the Multi-State Cooperative Act, 2002. The court, upon hearing the petitioner’s senior counsel, Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, noted that a revised election program had been issued by the Returning Officer, specifying nominations for reserved seats for women and SC/ST categories. Mr. Garg argued that this revision was in violation of Section 41(3) of the Multi-State Cooperative Act, 2002, and that the original notification should apply to all 15 posts rather than just 12 director positions. The court issued notices to the respondents and directed that, until the next hearing, the Returning Officer should not accept nominations for the specified reserved seats. The case revolves around the perceived discrepancy between the original and revised election programs and their compliance with relevant legal provisions.
Laws Involved:
Section 41(3) of the Multi-State Co-operative Act, 2002- (3) The board shall consist of such number of directors as may be specified in the bye- laws: Provided that the maximum number of directors in no case shall exceed twenty- one: Provided further that the board may co- opt two directors in addition to twenty- one directors specified in the first proviso: Provided also that the functional directors in the national co- operative societies shall also be the members of the board and such members shall be excluded for the purpose of counting the total number of directors specified in the first proviso.
Issue framed by the Court:
whether the ‘Revised Election Program’ notification is in violation of Section 41 (3) of the Coperative Act, 2002, and whether a composite election notification should be issued to ensure a fair opportunity to all members?
Courts Judgment and Analysis:
The Court ruled in favor of the applicant and held that the ‘Revised Election Program’ notification is in violation of Section 41(3) of the Multi-State Co-operative Act, 2002. The Court ordered the quashing of the proceedings and the issuance of a fresh composite notification for 15 posts. The Court also specified that the reserved seats for women / SC / ST candidates should be mentioned in the notification. The Court reasoned that while it is generally reluctant to interfere in election matters once the process has started, it has a duty to step in when there is unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb a level-playing field between candidates and/or political parties. The Court found that the relief sought by the applicant was required to be granted and that the High Court’s orders were in aid of the electoral process.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
