Important Point – Expression of hope cannot be equated with issuance of direction.

Akil Kureshi, J.

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 08.05.2015, at Annexure-A to the petition, rejecting petitioner's objection to as many as 40 traders, whose names were included in the voters list in the traders constituency for the election to the Agriculture Produces Market Committee, Pathavada, Dist. Banaskantha. The litigation has long history.

2. Brief facts are as under:-

2.1 On 10.12.2014, the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance Department, Government of Gujarat (“the Director” for short), published election programme for electing members to the said APMC. After completion of various stages, as per this notification, the election would be conducted on 10.03.2015, counting of the votes would take place on 11.03.2015, followed by declaration of the results of the elections. On the ground that revenue area of three villages, Pasavada, Satarvada and Rampura (Pasavada) were added within the geographical limits of the APMC, election programme was cancelled by issuing notification dated 13.02.2015, inviting objections to inclusion of these three villages within the APMC.

2.2 On 20.02.2015, agenda for the meeting to be convened on 28.02.2015 of APMC was circulated. One of the subjects was for consideration of the applications for grant of licences made on 06.12.2014. On 28.02.2015, the Committee granted new licences to 20 applicants.

2.3 In the meantime, on 22.02.2015, SCA No.3041 of 2015 came to be filed by this very petitioner for a direction for setting aside the decision of the Director dated 13.02.2015 to postpone the election of the APMC. Consequential direction prayed for was that the election may continue as previously announced. This petition came to be disposed of by Division Bench by order dated 23.02.2015. The contention of the Government Pleader was that the proceedings for altering the existing market area of APMC to include the said three villages has already been initiated vide notification dated 31.01.2015 and the Director has already invited objections and suggestions against the said proposed inclusion. It was stated before the Court after considering objections and suggestions, final decision would be taken by the Director and thereafter election for the Market Committee could be held as early as possible. Upon which, the Court held and observed as under:-

“4. Heard, the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. At the outset it is required to be noted that the Director respondent No. 2 herein, has already initiated the proceedings for alteration of the existing market area of APMC, Panthawada vide Notification dated 31/01/2015 and it is proposed to include three villages viz. Paswal, Shatarwada and Rampura (Paswal) into the existing market area of APMC, Panthawada and the objections/suggestions are invited against the aforesaid proposed action, as provided under Section 5 and 6 of the Act. As per the provisions of the Act, more particularly, Sections 5 and 6, 30 days time is required to be given for submitting the objections/suggestions against inclusion of the aforesaid three villages into the existing market area of APMC, Panthawada and thereafter, the election of newly constituted market area/market committee is required to be held. The apprehension on the part of the petitioners that the Director will take considerable time in concluding the proceedings for alteration of the existing market area i.e. inclusion of aforesaid three villages in the existing market area of APMC, Panthawada and that considerable time will be taken by the Director in holding the election of the newly constituted marker area/market committee, is not well-founded and/or it is only an apprehension. There is no reason for the Director not to complete the proceedings of alteration of the limits of the existing market area of APMC, Panthawada and not to hold the election of the newly constituted market area/market committee at the earliest. It is hoped that the Director, the respondent