(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)

1. Invoking Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, chairman of a primary level cooperative society, has sought to challenge order dated 7.6.2012 of the Election Officer and Deputy Collector, City Prant Surat, whereby his nomination for election to the Committee of Surat District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited (“SUMUL” for short) has been rejected on the basis of objections raised by respondent no.2 herein, a rival candidate. SUMUL is a 'specified society' under Section 74-C of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), and therefore, election of members of its committee is governed by the provisions of Chapter XI-A of the Act and has to be conducted in the manner laid down by or under that Chapter. Chapter XI-A of the Act consists of Section 145-A to Section 145-Z of the Act and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 145-Y the State Government has made the Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committees Rules, 1982 (for short, “the Rules”), to provide for and to regulate matters relating to various stages of the election.

2. According to the petition, the petitioner being the Chairman of Shri Pipalkuva Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited, he was authorized by that society by passing a resolution to cast his vote and contest the election for the committee of SUMUL. He accordingly submitted his nomination papers, for receiving which the appointed date under the election programme published under Rule 16 was from 29.5.2012 to 4.6.2012. The date for publication of list of nomination forms received was 5.6.2012; and the date for scrutiny of nomination form was 7.6.2012, from 12 p.m. The date for publishing list of approved nomination forms was also 7.6.2012, after the procedure for checking was over. The dates for withdrawal of nomination forms were from 8.6.2012 to 14.6.2012.

2.1 According to the petition itself, a candidate was required to have deposited milk in the respective society for 200 days, twice on each day, and he must not be a defaulter in repaying his debt to the society. According to the petitioner, he had complied with both the conditions and documents in that regard were produced before the Returning Officer in the form of duly signed certificate of SUMUL and the primary society of which he was the Chairman.

2.2 It transpires from the affidavit of respondent no.2, the objector and rival candidate, that he had submitted his objections against acceptance of nomination of the petitioner on 4.6.2012, one of which was in respect of the petitioner being a debtor of the primary society and the other was for not having supplied milk for 200 days. He has clearly stated on oath that on the day of scrutiny i.e. 5.6.2012, he had submitted another objection stating that as per record of the primary society, the petitioner was not made any payment for the milk supplied; and also stated that, after submission of his objection on 4.6.2012, the petitioner had tampered the computer records of the society and got entered his name as a milk supplier in place of his son at Code No.0189. He had produced certified copy of the list of milk suppliers of the primary society, before the Returning Officer and even a certificate of Secretary of that society stating that the petitioner had not supplied milk during the entire year from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012. According to respondent no.2, the certificates relied upon by the petitioner were forged or concocted after tampering with the record. As against such allegations, the petitioner has, by filing an affidavit in rejoinder stated that the objection dated 4.6.2012 of the respondent itself revealed that the amount shown to be outstanding against the petitioner were as on 31st March 2011 and not as on 31st March 2012 as alleged in paragraph 3 of the affidavit of respondent no.2. As for the record of supplying milk, it is alleged by the petitioner that the respond