JUDGMENT D.P. Mohapatra, C.J.
1. On consideration of the application filed by Sri S. M. A. Qazmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, with the prayer to take up the case during the vacation since the matter is extremely urgent, an order was passed that the case will be taken up by us today. Accordingly notice was given to the learned counsel for both the parties. We have heard Sri S. M. A. Qazmi for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Misra, Chief Standing Counsel, for respondents 1 and 4 and Sri Triloki Nath and Sri D. P. Singh for respondent 3.
2. R.P. Singh Baghel has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the final voters list dated 1.10.97 issued by the City Magistrate/Election Officer. Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Allahabad, respondent No. 1 so far as it relates to constituencies No. 1 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition), 2 (Annexure
11), 3 (Annexure 8), 4 (Annexure 7), 6 (Annexure 5A), 8 (Annexure 12), 9 (Annexure 10) and 12 (Annexure 9). The voters list was prepared for the election of members, chairman and vice-chairman of the Committee of Management of the Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd. In exercise of power vested in the Election Officer under Rule 441 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968.
3. The main ground of challenge against the voters' list, as revealed from the record, is that the petitioner and some other delegates of primary societies whose names were included in the provisional voters' list have been arbitrarily and illegally excluded from the final voters' list while some persons who were disqualified to be delegates to the general body of the central society like Kamlesh Narain have been arbitrarily and illegally included in the final list.
4. According to the election programme notified by the Election Officer vide notification dated 20.9.1997 (Annexure 1), the voting for election of members of the Committee of Management of the Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd. is scheduled to be held tomorrow (6.10.1997) and for election of chairman and vice-chairman on 7.10.1997. It is not disputed before us that the provisional voters' list was notified on 25.9.1997. Objections to the provisional list were to be received by 29.9.1997, which was also the date for disposal of the objections. Thereafter the final voters' lists were notified on 1.10.1997 according to the election programme relating to the Committee of Management.
5. On the factual backdrop of the case as noted above, the question that arises for consideration is whether this Court should entertain the writ petition at this stage. Ancillarily, the question for consideration is whether an interim order interfering with the election process should be made.
6. Sri S. M. A. Qazmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously urged that the exclusion of the petitioner and others from the voters' list and inclusion of some disqualified members like Kamlesh Narain and others in the list are contrary to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and the Rules framed thereunder. According to Sri Qazmi, it is a fit case where this Court should interfere in the proceeding even at the intermediate stage of the election process.
7. Sri Vinod Misra and Sri Triloki Nath appearing for the respondents equally strenuously urged that the grounds of challenge taken in the writ petition can be appropriately raised before the competent authority/Tribunal by way of reference of a dispute under Section 70 of the Act read with Rule 44C of the Rules and this Court in its writ jurisdiction should decline to interfere with the election process at this stage. The further submission of the learned counsel is that the allegations made and the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition involve questions of fact, for inquiry into which this Court in writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum. If an election dispute is raised, then the parties concerned will have opportunity to lead evidence in support of their pleas and the controversy can be effectively and appropriately resolved.
8. In Section 70 of the Act, it is provided, inter alia, that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, (f any dispute relating to the Constitution, Management or the business of a co-operative society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society arises, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for action in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of any such dispute. In the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 70, it is laid down that dispute relating to an election under the provisions of ;he Act or rules made thereunder shall not be referred to the Registrar until after the declaration of the result of such election. In Rule 44C it is provided, inter alia, that the election to a co-operative society shall not be called in question either by arbitration or otherwise except on the ground, inter alia, that the result of the election has been materially affected by gross failur e to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or the bye-laws of the society. As noted earlier, the main grounds of the petitioner against the voters' list are illegal and arbitrary exclusion of the petitioner and others and illegal and arbitrary inclusion of certain names in the list. Such a ground can very well be taken in an election dispute raised by the petitioner after declaration of the result of the election as provided under Section 70 of the Act. In our considered view, the case in hand is not such an extraordinary one which warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction at this intermediate stage of the election process bypassing the alternative remedy available under the statute. We are fortified in our view by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde v. State of Maharasrtira. AIR 1994 SC 1673. where the Apex Court has ruled :
".............. 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."
In the case of Suresh Kumar Tyagi v. Krishna Kumar and Others. AIR 1995 All 57. a Division Bench of this Court has taken a similar view after a detailed discussion of the provisions of the Act and Rules with reference to various decisions of the Supreme Court like Gujarat University v. N. U. Rajguru, AIR 1988 SC 66 ; S. T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, AIR 1988 SC 616 ; Dhartipakar Madanlal Agrawal v. Sri Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1987 SC 1577 ; A. K. M. Hassan Uzzaman v. Union of India, (1983) 2 SCC 218 ; N. P. Punnuswami v. Returning Officer. Namakkal Constituency. AIR 1952 SC 64 and a decisions of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Singh v. State of U. P., (1992) 1 UPLBEC 292.
9. 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 mid way. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order for costs.