The Patna High Court in the case Maharana Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Others observed wherein the writ plea was move din the form of Public Interest Litigation, PIL challenging the guidelines issued by the Chief Election Officer of the Bihar State Election Authority with regards to the election to the Managing Committee of the Vyapar Mandal Co-operative Societies.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Madhuresh Prasad in the case observed and has stated that the election to the Vyapar Mandal is required to be conducted in terms of co-operative movement under the provisions of Bihar Co-operative Societies Act and Rules which are framed thereunder.
The bench in the case observed that if the constitution of the Committee is not being done out of persons, wherein it has been submitted that the nomination/s, it is for them to take steps in accordance with the Act and Rules before the authorities competent under the Act, in accordance with law.
In the present case, the petitioner named Maharana Singh, was aggrieved by the guidelines, wherein it is stipulated that if there is a lack of competition after the nomination process for elections is completed and the election would be stayed and intimation given to the State Election Commission.
Further, it has been observed by the said court that Singh was not among the individuals who had submitted nominations for membership of the Managing Committee or the position of its Chairman. Thus, it has been claimed before the court that Singh claimed to be an elected representative of the Block and he failed to include the nominated Chairmen of the PACS in his petition.
Subsequently, the court observed that it cannot be ascertained whether these individuals still desired to be members of the Managing Committee of the Vyapar Mandal solely based on Singh’s assertions.
The bench while considering the fats and circumstances of the case concluded that there being no discernible public interest justifying the exercise of extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ plea.
The counsel, Advoacte, Mr.Arbind Kumar Singh appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, AC to AAG-11 represented
the respondent.
