Completion of cooperative elections renders writ petitions infructuous, leaving the aggrieved party to pursue Rule 50 remedies.

The petitioner challenged the Election Officer’s order dated 31.08.2026 and the final voter list of the District Cooperative Bank, Haridwar, alleging that he and other eligible representatives of Multipurpose Mehwad Khurd Sahkari Samiti Ltd. had been wrongly excluded from participating in the election.

He further sought consideration of the electoral position after excluding the name of Arbaaz, whose resignation from the post of representative had allegedly been accepted by the competent Board, and sought their inclusion in the voter list.

During the proceedings, instructions from the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, disclosed that elections to the District Cooperative Banks in the Garhwal Division had been completed on 08.09.2026.

The Court applied Rule 50 of the Uttarakhand State Cooperative Societies Election Rules, 2018, which provides an election-suit remedy under Section 70 of the applicable Cooperative Societies law for parties aggrieved by the election of an official or representative of a cooperative society.

Under Rule 50(2), an election challenge may be raised on grounds including corrupt practice, bribery or undue influence; improper acceptance or rejection of nomination; improper acceptance or rejection of votes; or gross non-compliance with the Act, rules or bye-laws where the election result has been materially affected.

Such an election dispute must be referred within 45 days from declaration of the result, subject to payment of the prescribed fee.

The Court further applied the principle that once the election process has concluded, a pre-election or election-stage challenge ordinarily becomes infructuous, with the aggrieved party required to pursue the statutory election remedy.

Since the elections to the concerned District Cooperative Banks had been completed on 08.09.2026, the immediate reliefs sought—quashing the impugned order and voter list and permitting the petitioner to participate in the election—could no longer be effectively granted through the writ petition.

The Court therefore held that the petitioner’s grievance did not survive in the existing proceedings.

However, because Rule 50 specifically provides a mechanism to challenge an election on grounds such as improper rejection of votes or non-compliance with the governing statutory provisions, the petitioner was not left without a remedy and could pursue an election petition within the prescribed period.

Accordingly disposed of it.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file an election petition under Rule 50 of the Uttarakhand State Cooperative Societies Election Rules, 2018.