Parliamentary Elections Justifiable Reasons For Delay In Holding Elections To Board Of Milk Producers Society: Karnataka High Court
Mustafa Plumber
4 July 2024 6:20 AM GMT
The Karnataka High Court has observed that delay in conducting elections to the Board of Tumkur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies, due to conduct of Parliamentary Elections (Lok Sabha), is justified.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind made the observation while disposing of an appeal filed by incumbent President of the Milk Society, challenging a single bench order which had disposed of their plea seeking direction to the Co-operative Election Commissioner to conduct elections to the Society.
Alternatively, he sought permission for the existing Board of Management to continue and manage the affairs of the Society without subjecting him to disqualification from holding the post.
During the hearing of the appeal it was brought to notice of the Court that the State government had issued a notification extending the period of the Board but by a subsequent notification had rescinded the earlier notification. The government counsel also informed that now the election programme has been notified.
The Court referred to Section 28-A(4) of the Societies Act and noted that the prescribed term of office of Board members is 5 years from the date of election; and that they shall deemed to have vacated office on the date of completion of the term.
Refusing to accept the contention of appellants that the action on the part of the respondent in not coming out with a timetable for election and not holding the election was not only illegal but deserved to be deprecated, the court said,
“The Parliamentary elections was a justifiable reason and a good ground for inability to adhere to the timeline, since the entire administrative staff and machinery were preoccupied and occupied in the general elections. The due elections to the Board of the Society were inevitably delayed. In the circumstances, the pedantic approval would not subserve the purpose. The court does not find any serious irregularity committed in notifying the elections at a later stage.”
Further the court refused to direct that elections should be rescheduled and held earlier than notified. It said, “Holding of any election should book no delay and elections, at whatever level of democratic institution, have to be conducted in time. However, in the present case, the co-operative election could not be held in time and timeline could not be immediately adhered to because of impending and intervening general elections to the Parliament. It was a legitimate reason.”
It added “Pragmatism and flexibility are not alien aspects in deciding the election schedule, without sacrificing the higher democratic principle. The election calendar has already been set and the process of election has commenced. The stages have started from the month of May-2024. The dates are fixed to provide the different stages as statutorily required. Any interjection by the court in the election programme, at this stage, would on the contrary unsettle the elections, which are already underway. The court would not tinker with and upset the election programme.”
The court disposed of the appeal saying it would be always disinclined to interfere with the election process. "When the timetable is also notified and the election schedule is declared, no further order is required in this election. Fixing the timetable for the election is ultimately in the domain of the election authorities.”
Appearance: Senior Advocate D R Ravishankar a/w Advocate Nagaraju for Appellants
Additional Advocate General Prathima Honnapura a/w Additional Government Advocate Niloufer Akbar for R 1, 3 and 4.
Advocate A.C.Balaraj for R5.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
Case Title: C V Mahalingaiah & Others AND The State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2024
