Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts of the case Section 11(3) of the Act is attracted.

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, C.J.

This Special Civil Application has been referred to a Larger Bench by order dated 9th April 2013 passed by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Jayant Patel & Mohinder Pal, JJ.) as the said Bench was of the opinion that the view proposed by that Bench was, to some extent, in conflict with the one earlier taken by another Division Bench of this Court (Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhaya, CJ & J.B. Pardiwala, J.) in the case of Dashrathsinh Ramjubhai Gohil vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2011 (1) GLH 795.

2. The case made out by the petitioner in the Special Civil Application giving rise to this Reference can be summed up thus:-

2.1 The petitioner is a voter in the category of the traders’ constituency at Sr. No.1745 in the final voters’ list for the election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Deesa, the respondent no. 4.

2.2 That the term of elected body of the respondent No.4-committee was going to expire on 7th January 2012, and therefore, the respondent No.4 issued a notification dated 19th October 2011 for fresh election and consequently, published an election-programme for the election of 14 seats of all the three constituencies of the respondent No.4. The said three constituencies consist of 8 seats of agriculturists’ constituency, 4 seats of traders’ constituency and 2 seats of cooperative marketing societies’ constituency.

2.3 With respect to the 4 seats of traders’ constituency, 17 nomination forms were filed. However, for the reasons unknown to the petitioner, all the 17 candidates had withdrawn their nomination-forms on the relevant date, namely, 7th January 2012 as a result, the respondent No.3 had issued a notice dated 7th January 2012 declaring that all the 17 candidates had withdrawn their nomination-forms.

2.4 The election with respect to the other 10 seats i.e. 8 seats of agriculturists’ constituency and 2 seats of cooperative marketing societies’ constituency were held and the result of the said elections were declared. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 published a notification dated 30th January, 2012 declaring the results of the election.

2.5 Subsequently, the respondent No.2 in breach of the provisions of the Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the Rules framed there under (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) issued an order dated 1st February 2012 for conducting bye-election of 4 traders’ constituency and published an election-programme for the same. The petitioner claims that he was unaware of the same. However, the respondent No.2 again issued direction dated 18th March 2013 for conducting elections of the 4 seats of traders’ constituency and issued the programme for the same.

2.6 According to the petitioner, in terms of the direction of the respondent No.2, the said notice of election had not been published in a local Gujarati Daily Newspaper or even if the same had been published, such publication had not come to the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that some kind of mischief with respect to the publication of the notice dated 18th March 2013 had been committed by the persons having vested interest in not informing the people about the said election-program.

2.7 According to the petitioner, after having come to know about the notice dated 18th March 2013, he obtained a copy of the same and after going through the same, he came to know that previously another Special Civil Application being Special Civil Application No.2070 of 2012 was filed by one Laljibhai Kalaji Patel before this Court challenging the notification dated 1st February 2012 and the election-programme for the 4 seats of traders’ constituency. Upon further inquiry, the petitioner came to know that in view of interim order granted by this High Court on the said petition, the election of the 4 seats of traders’ constituency could not be held at the relevant point of time. However, the said petition being Special Civil Application No.2070 of 20