RAM PYARE CHAUDHARY & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 207 · Decided: 11-02-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
, 
-· \ 
207 
RAM PY ARE CHAUDHARY & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
Pebruary II, 1982 
[0.A. DBSAI, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ.J 
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965-S. 29(2} read with r. 445(1)-Election 
of membtrs-Po/I held but declaration of result withheld by injunclion-Term of 
office fixed under statute-How reckoned-Power to remove elected representatives-
Construction of. 
The management of a cooperative society· registered under the U.P. 
Cooperative Societies Act vests in a committee constituted in accordance with 
the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The term of elected 
members of a committee, accordiiig to s. 29(2) read with r. 445(1) is three 
'Cooperative years' including the cooperative year in which they are elected. 
'Cooperative year' means the year commencing on the 1st day of July and ending 
on the 30th day of June n.Xt following. Fresh members are to be elected before 
the expiry of the term of existing elected members failing which an administrator 
ca.n be appointed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies to manage the 
affairs of the cooperative society till the reconstitution of the committee. 
In this case the term of the cooperative society in question was drawing 
to a close and the poll to elect frosh members w.S held on September 11, 1978. 
The result of the poll could not be declared immediately owing to an injunction 
issued by a court in a suit filed by a voter whose name bad not appeared in the 
electoral roil. The result was, however, declared ultimatelY on January 28, 1980, 
and appellant No. 1 was elected Chairman of the committee on January 29, 1980. 
By an order dated July 1, 1981, made under s. 29(4) (b), the Deputy Registrar. 
Cooperative Societies. appointed an administrator to manage the affairs of the 
society on the ground that the term of members of.the Committee had expired 
on June 30, 1981. 
The appellants challenged the validity of the order under 
Art. 226. 
The High Court upheld the impugned order and dismmissed the petition on 
the ground that once the poll was held and even though the result of the election 
was not announed, the term would commence from the date of the poll. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The ahppellant
1
ssuhb°:'ittedbeethatdeve
1
n thdo~gh hthefipotllt~as heJJd on s
2
ep
8
tem
19
b
8
e
0
r 
G . 
II, 1978, t e resu t 
avi.g 
n ec are •Ort e rs 
1me on anuary 
, 
, 
the term of three cooperative years of the elected members· wou1d expire on 
June 30, 1982. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : I. (a) Election means the process of being elected and the term 
of office is of elected members. 
The term of office as member cannot .begin to 
run unless the statu1 9f bein' a tl!eoi~r i! acquired o~ being declared electe~. 
H 
208 
SUPREME COURT REPOP.TS 
[1982) 3 s.c.ll. 
A 
The result of the election having been declared on January 28, 1980, the term nf 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
· members commenced from the cooperative year beginning on July l, 1979 and 
ending with June 30, 1980 and since their term was three cooperative years 
including the year of election, it would expire on June 30, 1982. The order 
appointing the admin_istrator was, therefore illegal. 
[213 H, 214 H, 215 A, 216 F-G) 
(b) The provision of s. 29(4) (b) was not attracted as the process of election 
had begun with the holding of the poll before the expiry of the term and, once 
the poll was held as a part of the programme of election, it had to progress to the 
statutory end of declaration of result. [216 B-E) 
2. The various stages of election were clearly demarcated in the Rules. 
Mere holding of poll, which means recording of votes, without anything more 
would be inconsequential. . It is the counting of votes and the consequent 
declaration of result which. would determine who has become eligible fo{ office 
by the democratic process. 
No election process can be said to be complete 
uDless the votes are recorded and counted and the result of the election declared 
and publicised. [212 G-H, 213 E-G] 
3. The election process is sacrosanct and members elected must be 
permitted to discharge their functions as chosen representatives of the.-'electorate 
for the statutori!Y prescribed terrri and therefore the plea that the administrator 
should not be disturbed as only four months would remain for the expiry of the 
term cannot be countenanced. 
The drastic power of removing elected represen-
tatives before the eXpiry of their term must receive strict and narrow inter

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.