Rajesh Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

P.K Lohra, J.:— Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned action of the respondents, whereby his candidature to contest the election as Director of the fourth respondent-Bank is rejected. The petitioner has further craved for seeking direction against the respondents to accept his nomination in the election of Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank.

2. The facts, in brief giving rise to this petition, are that the petitioner was elected as delegated member from Election Ward No. 31 of the respondent-Bank and a certificate to this effect was issued in his name vide Annex.2 Thereafter the respondent-Bank published a complete list of 74 elected members from various wards of respondent-Bank. As per version of petitioner being eligible to contest election of Board of Directors, he submitted his nomination form for the election of Board of Directors of the Bank before the last date i.e 24th of May, 2016. The scheduled date for election was notified as 30 of May, 2016. The third respondent issued a list vide Annex.4 showing 27 incumbents, who submitted their nomination forms including the petitioner. Later on, the nomination forms were scrutinized and a list of eligible candidates was circulated vide Annex.5 Subsequently, the third respondent vide Annex.6 published a list of 20 candidates who remained in fray to contest election of Board of Directors of the Bank. In the said list, the petitioner's name did not find place. This sort of situation prompted the petitioner to make necessary inquiry and thereupon it was revealed that petitioner's candidature is rejected precisely on the ground that he has been convicted for offence under Sections 307, 324, 323, 325 and 34 IPC in the year 2013 and therefore, by virtue of Section 28 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (for short, ‘Act’) he has incurred disqualification to contest the election.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that clause (i) of subsection (8) of Section 28 of the Act envisages that if cognizance is taken against an individual for the offences mentioned therein he is not eligible to contest the election and therefore, according to the petitioner, clause (ii) of sub-section (8) of Section 28 of the Act is also to be construed in such a manner that any conviction other than offences mentioned in clause (i) of sub-section (8) of Section 28 of the Act be not treated as disqualification. Essentially, the petitioner has made an attempt to invoke the doctrine of ‘ejusdem generis’.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

5. Before examining the afflictions of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to refer sub-section (8) of Section 28 of the Act of 2001. The Complete text of sub-section (8) of Section 28 of the Act reads as under:-

8 No person-

(i) against whom a competent court has taken cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 120B, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 415, 416, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 447, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476 or 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act No. 45 of 1860) and is under trial shall be eligible to be elected, co-opted or nominated or to continue as a member of the committee of a society; or

(ii) who has been convicted of any offence by a competent court and sentenced to imprisonment for three months or more, such sentence not having been subsequently reversed or remitted or the offender pardoned, shall be eligible to be elected, co-opted or nominated or to continue as a member of the committee of a society for a period of five years from the date of such conviction.

6. A bare perusal of clause (ii) of sub-section (8) of Section 28 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that if an incumbent has been convicted of any offence by a competent court and sentenced to imprisonment for three months or more, then he shall not be eligible to be elected, co-opted or nominated or to continue as a member of the committee of the society for a period of five years from the date of such conviction.

7. There remains no quarrel that petitioner is convicted for the serious offence under Section 307 IPC besides other offences and has been sentenced to three years imprisonment, and therefore, in terms of clause (ii) of sub-section (8) of Section 28 of the Act, he is not eligible to contest the election.

8. Mere pendency of appeal and suspension of sentence by appellate Court, in the considered opinion of this court, has not obliterated the conviction of the petitioner so as to make him eligible to contest the election within the four corners of clause (ii) of subsection (8) of Section 28 of the Act. The plea of the petitioner, on the anvil of doctrine of ‘ejusdem generis’, is nothing but an ambitious plea which cannot be countenanced in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in view of clear and unambiguous provisions contained under clause (ii) of sub-section (ii) of Section 28 of the Act. The ‘ejusdem generis’ rule strives to reconcile the incompatibility between specific and general words. This doctrine applies when:

(i) the statute contains an enumeration of specific words:

(ii) the subjects or enumeration constitute a class or category;

(iii) that class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration;

(iv) the general term follows the enumeration;

(v) there is no indication of a different legislative intent.

9. No such situation is available in the instant case and therefore, the doctrine of ‘ejusdem generis’ is not at all attracted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

10. Resultantly, I find no illegality in the impugned action of the respondents and consequently the present petition fails and same is, hereby, dismissed summarily.