Case Background
The case arose from the election of the Managing Committee of Pirapur Mathura Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (PACS) in Goraul Block, Vaishali district.
Before the election, 392 persons had applied online to become members of this PACS. Only members could be included in the voter list and participate in the election.
The election was scheduled for 13.12.2019. A dispute developed over whether these 392 applicants were properly considered for membership and whether they should have been included in the voter list.
Out of these 392, 13 applicants approached the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. They said that no adverse order rejecting their membership request had ever been communicated to them. The Assistant Registrar allowed their request and directed that they be included.
Initially, the voter list was prepared including only those 13 applicants. Later, on the basis of a departmental communication dated 05.07.2019, the authorities suo motu included all 392 persons in the voter list. When the matter came before the Patna High Court, the list was revised again, and all 392 applicants were deleted from the voter list.
Meanwhile, the election process went ahead based on a voter list that excluded these 392 applicants. The election was completed, but the result was not declared, pending the Court’s decision in this writ petition.
What the Court Examined and Decided
A Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar, heard the matter. The judgment was delivered orally by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on 09.01.2023.
The Court noted that the core issue “started on a simple note”: whether the 392 persons who had applied for membership of the PACS were entitled to be included in the voter list for the election scheduled on 13.12.2019.
From the pleadings and documents, it appeared that all 392 persons had applied online for membership before the Managing Committee. There was, however, controversy about whether their applications were accepted or rejected.
Documents on record showed that, on the system, the applications of some of the applicants were marked as rejected online, with the date shown as 29.01.2019. At the same time, the resolution of the Managing Committee of the PACS showed a different picture.
According to that resolution, out of the 392 applications, there were errors in either signing by the applicant or counter-signing by two members. Only in such defective cases was a decision taken to reject the applications. For the rest of the applications where there was no defect, the Managing Committee decided to allow them and make those applicants members.
However, the admitted position was that none of the 392 applicants were actually made members. As per the applicants’ stand, no decision was ever communicated to them. Because they received no communication, 13 of the 392 approached the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who allowed their plea and ordered their inclusion, noting the absence of any communicated rejection.
The voter list initially included only these 13 persons. Subsequently, pursuant to a communication dated 05.07.2019 from the Department, all 392 persons were included in the voter list. After this was brought to the Court’s notice in the writ proceedings, the list was revised again, and all 392 persons were deleted from the voter list.
During the hearing on 09.01.2023, senior officers were present in Court pursuant to an earlier order dated 05.03.2020: the Director General (Vigilance), Principal Secretary (G.A.D.), Secretary (Department of Co-operation), District Magistrate, Vaishali, B.D.O., Goraul, Vaishali, and the C.E.O., Goraul.
The Court specifically examined when and how the alleged online rejection of the 392 applications had taken place. It was not clear, on the basis of the materials and after assistance from counsel and officers, on what date the order rejecting the applications was actually posted or uploaded online, though the system showed the date 29.01.2019.
When the Court questioned counsel for respondents no. 8 and 9 (the then office bearers of the PACS) about the date of uploading, he could not provide any date. The Court also asked him how many applications had been allowed and how many rejected, and for the list of applicants whose applications were found in order and whose were rejected. He could produce no such list and could not even state the number of applications which were allowed.
The Court was informed that the elections had already been concluded on the basis of a voter list which did not include the 392 applicants. However, the results had not been declared.
On this material, the Court recorded that it had “no hesitation” in holding that the preparation of the voter list was vitiated. This vitiation was either because:
(a) the 392 applicants were not included even after the expiry of the time limit for considering their request for being added as members; or
(b) the Managing Committee, which was the empowered body to accept or reject applications, had not placed before the Court any clear data on how many were allowed or rejected, or the specific details of such persons.
The Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Government of Bihar, fairly submitted before the Court that the voter list itself stood vitiated, and, therefore, the election process could not be said to be in accordance with law.
The Court then weighed the situation. On one side, the election had been conducted without including the 392 applicants who had applied in time. On the other side, the Managing Committee’s own resolution showed that at least some of those 392 applications were allowed.
Once applications were allowed, the Court held, those persons must be treated as members. Their names should have appeared in the voter list, and they had a right to participate in the election. Yet, admitted facts showed that all 392 persons had been left out.
The Court observed that the figure of 392 was “a large number to be ignored” when compared to the 1116 persons whose names appeared in the voter list. This exclusion, without due process of law, was not acceptable.
Taking an overall view, the Court concluded that the election could not be sustained. It directed that the entire election process be redone “right from the inception i.e., preparation of the voter list itself.”
At the same time, the Court limited this fresh exercise to:
(i) the 1116 members already appearing in the voter list; and
(ii) the 392 fresh applicants.
The State Election Authority was directed to issue a fresh election programme starting from the stage of preparation of the voter list. The Court clarified that the consideration would not extend beyond the above 1116 persons and the 392 applicants.
The Court ordered that this fresh exercise should reach its logical conclusion strictly in accordance with law, including the relevant statute, rules, and the PACS bye-laws. It directed that the process be initiated within four weeks from the date of judgment. Any objections filed during the process were to be dealt with and disposed of in time, with proper consideration of both factual and legal aspects.
The Court also took serious note of “grave irregularity” committed by officers of the Cooperative Department, especially at the district level. Initially, the Court was inclined to entrust the enquiry to the Vigilance Department and noted the presence of the Director General, Vigilance in Court.
However, on the request of the Secretary, Department of Co-operation, who sought permission to conduct an in-house enquiry and to frame strict guidelines for officers dealing with constitution of Managing Committees/Governing Bodies of Cooperative Societies at all levels, the Court accepted this proposal.
Accordingly, the Court refrained, for the present, from directing a vigilance enquiry. The Secretary assured that the exercise would be completed within two months, and strict and specific guidelines would be issued.
The Court added that departmental officers must be clearly informed that any violation or failure to strictly adhere to those guidelines would be treated as misconduct and would attract penal consequences. It also expressed its expectation that, based on the enquiry into the conduct of the officers in the present case, responsibility would be fixed and appropriate action taken.
With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This Patna High Court judgment has important practical effects for cooperative elections in Bihar.
First, it shows that if membership applications are mishandled and eligible applicants are kept out of the voter list, the entire election can be cancelled, even if the voting has already taken place and only the result remains to be declared.
Second, it protects applicants who were not informed about rejection of their membership. The Court took note that no adverse decision was communicated to the applicants, which supported their claim to be considered.
Third, it forces departments and PACS authorities to maintain clear records of who has been accepted or rejected and on what basis. In this case, the absence of such records and clear data weighed heavily against the validity of the election.
Fourth, the Court’s direction for an in-house enquiry and issuance of strict guidelines signals that future negligence or manipulation in cooperative elections will be treated as misconduct with penal consequences.
For ordinary members and applicants of cooperative societies, this judgment reinforces that they have a right to be considered fairly and transparently for membership and voting. For officers, it is a warning that casual or arbitrary handling of such processes will not be tolerated by the Patna High Court.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the PACS election conducted on the basis of a voter list excluding 392 applicants, who had applied in time and whose applications were partly allowed by the Managing Committee, was valid in law.
Answer: No. The Court held that the preparation of the voter list was vitiated and, consequently, the election could not be sustained and had to be redone from the voter list stage, including both the 1116 existing voters and the 392 applicants. - Issue: How should the authorities respond to serious irregularities by cooperative department officers in matters of membership and cooperative elections.
Answer: The Court permitted an in-house enquiry by the Secretary, Department of Co-operation, directed that strict guidelines be framed, and held that violation of such guidelines would amount to misconduct attracting penal consequences, while refraining for the present from ordering a vigilance enquiry.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No prior judgments or case law are cited or relied upon in the text of this decision.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 24786 of 2019
Case Title: Umesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2023 (1) PLJR 773
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate; Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Syed Iqbal Ahmad, SC 20
For the State Election Authority: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For Respondents No. 8 and 9: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Raja Ram Rai, Advocate
For Vigilance: Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Nature of the Case: Civil writ petition challenging the validity of PACS electoral process and voter list in a cooperative election.
Link to judgement ;https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMjQ3ODYjMjAxOSMxI04=—am1–3as–am1–pOxXt8=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
