SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Guj) 130

GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohinder Pal
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors.
Special Civil Application No. 2525 of 20131—Decided on 02/04/2013

Advocates:
Appearance :
Mr. Dipen Desai, Advocate, for the Petitioner No. 1.
Mr. P.K. Jani Government Pleader with Mr. Dhawan M. Jayswal AGP, for the Respondents No. 1- 4.
Mr. Bharat T. Rao, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 5.
Mr. N.D. Nanavati, Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Devang Vyas,

Point in Issue :
Whether impugned order of deletion of names of petitioner from voter list of society is sustainable.

Headnote:Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market Rules — Rules 4, 7, 7(2), 8(1) & 8(1-A) — Election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee Board — Excluding the name of petitioners from the voters list — Ground of exclusion that one person has become member in more than one Co-operative Society — Impugned order of exclusion passed by Authorised Officer — Legality of the order challenged — Finding of — Court held that the names of petitioners were their in the first voters list but no objection were filed against inclusion of their names in the list — The name of petitioners thereafter were continued in the second voters list published under Rule 8(1-A) — After publication of second voter list Court held that Authorised Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain any objection in that regard and order deletion of the name of petitioners from the final voter list — The provision under Rule 8(1-A) clearly shows that objection in this regard could be raised and entertained against any new names entered in the second final list of voter but objection cannot be filed and entertained against persons whose names were already there in the first list and continued in second list — It could, therefore, be said that action of Authorised Officer is ultra vires to his power and void and could be quashed in exercise of power by Court under Article 226 of Constitution — Consequently Court quashed and set aside this impugned order of Authorised Officer.

       Held :

       The names of the petitioners were there in the first voters’ list but no objections were filed against inclusion of their names in the voters’ list. [Para 10 (A)]

       The names of the petitioners were continued in the second voters’ list when published.

        [Para 10 (B)]

       As per Rule 8(1A), the objections could be raised and entertained against any new names entered in the second list. To say in other words, the objections against the names of the persons, whose names were already there in the first list and continued in the second list, cannot be filed or entertained after publication of the second list but if any voter is included in the second list for the first time and whose names did not exist in the first list, the objections could be filed under Rule 8(1A) and that appears to be scope and ambit of filing of objections and entertainment thereof by the Authorized Officer under Rule 8(1A). [Para 12]

       Consequently, it can be said that action of the Authorized Officer of entertaining the objections and the decision to delete the names of the office bearers of the petitioners-Societies in the final voters’ list is ultra vires to his power under Rule 8(1A) and void.

        [Para 16]

       If the action is ultra vires to the power or ex-facie without jurisdiction and without disturbing the election process, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised if the case is so made out. Therefore, Court find that after considering the decision of the Full Bench, this Court in its subsequent decision has taken the view that where the case was made out for the action being ultra vires or the nullity, the interference under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be said as not warranted. If the action is ultra vires and nullity, such case can be termed as an extraordinary circumstance to exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

        [Para 19 (i)]

       Law Laid Down :

       If the action is ultra vires and nullity — Such case can be termed as an extra-ordinary circumstance to exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution.

Judgment

Jayant Patel, J.—As in both the matters, common questions arise, they are being considered simultaneously.

2. The petitioner, by this petition, challenges an order dated 22.2.2013 passed by the Authorized Officer, Respondent No. 4 herein, to exclude the name of the petitioners from the voters’ list of Agriculture Constituency at the ensuing election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Botad (herein after referred to as ‘the Market Committee’).

3. The short facts are that election of Market Committee had become due and therefore, the Director, Respondent No. 2, in exercise of powers under Rule 4 of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market Rules (herein after referred to as ‘the Rules’) had declared election program and various stages of election were declared. As per election program, the process was to begin from 9.9.12. The second stage was for giving instructions by the Authorized Officer on 9.9.2012. So, third stage under Rule 7, to provide information to the Authorized Officer for the voters’ list was fixed on 18.9.2012. On 25.9.2012, the objections against the preliminary publication of the voters’ list were to be invited within 7 days as per Rule 7(2). Thereafter, on 8.10.2012, the objections against addition or alteration of the preliminary voters’ list as well as publication of the same was to be made as per Rule 8(1) [herein after referred to as First Voters’ List]. The process of election had continued up to that date but on 10.10.2012, on account of the election of legislative assembly, the election of Market Committee was postponed. It appears that thereafter, as the election of legislative assembly was over, once again, the Director, Respondent No. 2, in exercise of power under Rule 4 declared various stages of the election from the stage where it had stopped. As per the revised election program, the process begun from the stage of 11.2.2013 which was the date fixed for republication of the preliminary voters’ list. The objections against re-publication of the preliminary voters’ list [herein after referred to as Second Voters’ List] were to be submitted on or before 18.2.2013. The objections were filed against the inclusion of the names of the office bearers of the petitioners- Societies in the second voters’ list on the ground that one person has become Member in more than one Co-operative Society and he is also Member of the Managing Committee and as a result thereof, the names appear in the voters’ list on more than one time being the representatives of the respective Cooperative Society and therefore, their names should be excluded or deleted from the voters’ list. The Authorized Officer passed the impugned order; whereby, he found that if one is permitted to be included as the representative of more than one Cooperative Society, there may be artificial majority and therefore, he decided to accept the objections and the names of the office bearers of petitioners- Societies were excluded from the voters’ list of Agriculture Constituency. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached to this Court by preferring these petitions.

4. We have heard Mr. Dipen Desai learned Counsel appearing for both the petitioners. We have heard Mr. P.K. Jani, learned Government Pleader appearing for State Authorities including Authorized Officer. Mr. B.T. Rao appearing for Respondent No. 5 and Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Devang Vyas, for the applicant in Civil Application Nos. 3718 and 3721 of 2013, who are stated to have filed their nominations for contesting at ensuing election of the Agriculture Constituency of the Market Committee and who are permitted to be impleaded as a party in the present special civil applications.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Kuber Bhandareshwar Group Kheti Piyat Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. Authorized Officer & Co. Operative Officer Attached to the Market reported in 2012 (1) GLR 742


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top