HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1977 of 2025 (M/S) Salochna Devi ….....Petitioner Versus Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Chandra and Kailash Chandra, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.1. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the voter list of Constituency 4, Niranjanpur (Female) for election of Cane Cooperative Development Society Limited, Laksar (“the Society”); order dated 26.06.2025, by which an objection filed by the petitioner for cancellation of the nomination of the Respondent no. 3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, has been rejected; as well as the communication dated 27.06.2025, by which symbols have been allotted to the candidates contesting election. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner that she is permanent resident of Village Bhagatanpur Majra, Niranjanpur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar, and is also a member of the Society; she is elected delegate of the Society. Now, the election of Management Committee of the Society is to take place, for which the petitioner has already filed her nomination; the petitioner came to know that, in fact, the respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, has also filed her nomination. The petitioner gave an application to the society for cancellation of the membership of the respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, which, according to the petitioner, has been taken by her illegally on the basis of forged documents. The petitioner requested for 2 cancelation of the membership of the respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, but, by the impugned order dated 26.06.2025, the respondent no.2, The District Assistant Registrar/Returning Officer of the Society (“the Returning Officer”) has rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has challenged these orders. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, is not a farmer. She cannot be a member of the Society. According to Clause 53(A)(18) of the By-laws of the Society (“the By-laws”), the respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, cannot be a member of the Management Committee because she had not supplied sugarcane in the preceding three years to the sugar factory. 5. Learned counsel for the Society submits that the respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, is a farmer. She had purchased a property in the constituency on 06.11.2024, which was mutated in her name on 18.03.2025, which, it is argued, is evident by the extract of Khatauni, which is part of Annexure No.11 to the writ petition. It is submitted that the respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, is a new member and the condition of Clause 53(A)(18) of the By-laws is not attracted to her because this Clause itself reveals that it is not applicable to the new members. 6. The Court requested learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner to indicate as to how a person, who has no land in the constituency in some years in the past, may not be a member of the Management Committee of the Society? He could not indicate any Clause of the By-laws. 7. Clause 53(A)(18) of the By-laws of the Society reads as follows:- “53. (A) A person shall not be eligible to be a member of the Management Committee or continue to be a member of such Committee if:- ...................................................................................... ...................................................................................... 3 (18) He has not supplied sugarcane to the factory through the Society in all the three preceding years, but this condition shall not apply to the new members.” 8. Annexure No.11, the extract of the Khautani, has been filed by the petitioner. According to it, the petitioner had purchased land in the village on 06.11.2024, and mutation was done in her name on 18.03.2025. 9. On behalf of the Society, it is being stated that the respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, is a new member of the Society, who was inducted a member in the year 2023-24. Therefore, supplying sugarcane for the preceding three years condition, as enumerated in Clause 53(A)(18) of the By-laws does not attract on it. 10. The respondent no.3, Smt. Sarveshi Devi, is a new member of the Society, who was inducted in the Society in the year 2023-24. Annexure No.11, the extract of the Khautani, which has been filed by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner had purchased property in the Village Bhagatanpur Majra, Niranjanpur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar, on 06.11.2024, and her name was mutated on 18.03.2025. She is a new member of the Society. Therefore, the condition of supplying sugarcane to the factory through Society in all the preceding three years shall not apply to the petitioner, in view of Clause 53(A)(18) of the By-laws of the Society. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order, by which the objection of the petitioner has been rejected, does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 11. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 03.07.2025 Ravi Bisht