SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- R.C. Lahoti, CJ, and G.P. Mathur, J.

Civil Appeal No. 2639 of 2005 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7946 of 2005]. D/d. 15.4.2005.

Vadodara District Co-operative Sugarcane Producers' Union Ltd. - Appellant

Versus

Chandrakantbhai Thakorebhai Patel & Ors. - Respondents

Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Chapter 11-A - Elections to Managing Committee - Elections done to be held on 17.4.2005 - On challenge being laid to elections, High Court set aside the election programme on 7.4.2005 - Held, High Court ought not to have stayed the election process midway - Impugned order set aside - Elections to be held as scheduled.

[Paras 6 and 7]

ORDER

R.C. Lahoti, C.J. - Issue notice.

2. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1, present in the Court on caveat, takes notice.

3. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are proforma parties so far as the matter before us is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No. 4 is supporting the petitioner.

4. Leave granted.

5. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and in view of a short question arising for decision in this matter, the appeal is heard finally.

6. The elections of the Managing Committee required to be held as per Chapter XI-A of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 were in progress. In a writ petition laying challenge to the legality of certain steps taken by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the purpose of holing the elections, the High Court interfered with the election process midway, allowed the writ petition and set aside the election programme & all steps taken in accordance therewith. The order of the High Court was passed on 7th April, 2005, while the elections were scheduled to be held on 17th April, 2005. The aggrieved respondent No. 3 in the High Court has filed this appeal by special leave.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have stayed the process of election midway. We feel that the writ petition should have been heard on merits but without staying the process of election and that would have met the ends of justice.

8. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The elections will be held as notified. If the authorities feel that a fresh date for polling is to be appointed, then they may do so. The elections so held shall be subject to the final decision by the High Court in the writ petition. The writ petition in the High Court shall stand restored on the file of the High Court for being heard and decided on its own merits uninfluenced by any observation made in the impugned judgment.

9. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear in the High Court on 9th May, 2005.

.