Courts will not interdict scheduled elections; aggrieved members must pursue legal remedies after the electoral process concludes.

The Petitioner, a member of the Revanta Multi State CGHS Ltd (the 'Society'), filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an election notice dated January 19, 2026

The Petitioner sought to reschedule the elections set for March 29, 2026, alleging that the electoral roll was published incorrectly and the eligibility of voters had not been properly verified by the Returning Officer

Previously, in Mukesh Kumar v. Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies [W.P.(C) 12765/2025], the Court had observed that the Managing Committee of the same Society had lost its mandate and that any member aggrieved by the fresh election process should seek remedies only after the elections were concluded

1. Whether the Court should interdict or reschedule the ongoing election process of the Society based on allegations of an incorrect electoral roll

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to seek a stay on elections under Article 226 while the election process is already underway

Sections 28 and 29 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, which govern the preparation of the list of eligible members and the recovery of dues

The Court primarily applied the established judicial principle that courts should not generally interfere with or interdict an election process once it has commenced, as established in its previous ruling in Mukesh Kumar v. Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies

The Court also highlighted the ethical principle that a lawyer who is a member of a society and a previous litigant in related matters should ideally not appear as counsel in the same cause

The Court reasoned that the District Magistrate/Collector serving as the Returning Officer is an independent authority expected to have verified member eligibility before drawing the provisional list

It observed that interfering with the elections only days before the scheduled polling (March 29, 2026) would be contrary to the interests of the Society, which consists of over 4,000 members

The Court noted that allowing individual writ petitions to challenge the process mid-way would lead to a situation where elections could never be completed

The Court reiterated its stance from the Mukesh Kumar case, stating that the proper course of action for any aggrieved member is to challenge the election through appropriate legal remedies after the conclusion of the polls

The Court also noted the impropriety of the Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, appearing in the matter as he was the petitioner in a related case and a member of the Society himself

The Court held that interdicting the process would not serve the Society's interest and that the Petitioner remains free to avail of legal remedies after the elections are concluded

The petition and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly