The Patna High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that raised concerns about the guidelines issued by the Chief Election Officer of the Bihar State Election Authority for the election of the Managing Committee of the Vyapar Mandal Co-operative Societies.
Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Madhuresh Prasad, comprising the bench, stated, “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 framed thereunder.”
“If the constitution of the Committee is not being done out of persons, whom as per the petitioner’s assertion, had submitted 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,” the bench added.
The writ petition filed by Maharana Singh, challenging the guidelines issued by the Bihar State Election Authority. The guidelines stated that if there is a lack of competition after the completion of the nomination process, the election would be stayed and intimation given to the State Election Commission (SEC).
Singh’s argument was based on the nomination process, where only one person, the chairman of the Sherpur Primary Agriculture Credit Society (PACS), had filed a nomination for the position of chairman.
Although several other PACS chairmen had filed nominations for membership of the Managing Committee, the election results had not been announced, and the formation of the Committee was pending according to the guidelines. Singh claimed to have approached the Bihar State Election Authority, the District Magistrate of Arwal, and the Block Development Officer of Sonbhadra Banshi, seeking the uncontested declaration of the Committee due to the valid nominations. However, the court noted that Singh himself had filed the writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation, representing the residents of Sonbhadra Banshi Suryapur Block.
The court observed that Singh did not file nominations for membership of the Managing Committee or the position of Chairman and did not include the nominated Chairmen of the PACS in his petition. Therefore, it was uncertain whether these individuals still wished to be part of the Managing Committee solely based on Singh’s assertions. The bench concluded that there was no identifiable public interest justifying the exercise of extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
