Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141082-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25964 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayush Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Narendra Kumar Giri Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent nos.1 & 4 and Sri Narendra Kumar Giri, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the impugned order/letter dated no.568-78, dated 23.07.2025 passed by respondent no.2-Secretary, Uttar Pradesh State Co- operative Election Commission, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner has been debarred from contesting any election of the Society, namely, 'The Sainik Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Meerut' for a period of three years on the ground that the petitioner was earlier debarred from contesting the election by order dated 10.09.2021 which was communicated to the petitioner on 15.09.2021, and therefore, the conduct of the petitioner in submitting nomination form for the post of member of the Society on 12.09.2024 which was illegally accepted by the Election Officer on 13.09.2024 was not proper, inasmuch as three years period of petitioner's conviction had not expired on the date he filed the nomination paper. 3. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.2 on 02.07.2025 fixing 16.07.2025 at 3:00 p.m. It is submitted that thereafter the Society submitted a representation to the respondent no.2 on 10.07.2025 requesting the respondent no.2 to adjourn the case as the petitioner had some personal difficulty, and he is not able to appear on the said date. The petitioner had also submitted an application seeking an adjournment which is appearing at page-59 of the paper book. It is submitted that without considering the application for adjournment, the impugned order has been passed. It is contended that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained for violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that in the facts of the present case, it is proved on record that the petitioner's election was illegal as the petitioner could not have participated in the election since the three years period of conviction of the petitioner was to expire on 14.09.2024, and therefore, the petitioner could not have filled his nomination form on 12.09.2024 and acceptance of nomination form of the petitioner by the Election Officer was also illegal. 5. Be that as it may, the record reveals that though the petitioner was issued a notice on 02.07.2025 calling upon him to show cause, but the petitioner for some personal reason could not appear on the date fixed in the notice dated 02.07.2025. The Society had also moved an application/representation on 10.07.2025 to the respondent no.2 seeking adjournment in the case which was duly received in the office of respondent no.2 on 10.07.2025. 6. It appears that without giving due consideration to the application for adjournment of the petitioner, respondent no.2 proceeded to pass the impugned order on 23.07.2025. Therefore, in such view of the fact, we are of the opinion that since imposition of punishment banning the petitioner for three years from participating in the election prejudices serious rights of the petitioner which entails civil consequences, therefore, reasonable opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 7. In such view of the fact, we dispose off the writ petition permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation against the impugned order before the respondent no.2-Secretary, Uttar Pradesh State Co-operative Election Commission, Lucknow along with a certified copy of this order within a period of one month from today. In case, any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. The impugned order shall abide by the orders to be passed by the respondent no.2 on the representation of the petitioner. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 NS (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad