Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 957
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
B.M. Trivedi, J.
Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. – Respondents
Special Civil Application Nos. 2128, 2131, 2133, 2141, 2142, 2143, 2145, 2147, 2150, 2151 of 2016
Decided On : 28-06-2016
For the Appellant :Mihir Joshi, Ld. Sr. Counsel, Dipen Desai and Dilip B. Rana, Advocates.
For the Respondent:P.K. Jani, Ld. Addl. Advocate General and Jyoti Bhatt, AGP.
The petitioners failed to satisfy that they were Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies dispensing agricultural credit, as required by the amended Section 11(1)(i) of the APMC Act. The impugned orders, though not happily worded, were within the jurisdiction of the Authorized Officer, and the legality of the orders could have been challenged in the Election Petition before the Director under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules. The continuation of interim relief would further stall the declaration of the election result.
Headnote:
Election - Agricultural Produce Market Committee - Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 - Section 11(1)(i) of the APMC Act - The Court dismissed the petitions challenging the deletion of names of managing committee members from the voters' list, holding that the petitioners failed to satisfy that they were Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies dispensing agricultural credit, as required by the amended Section 11(1)(i) of the APMC Act. The Court found that the impugned orders, though not happily worded, were within the jurisdiction of the Authorized Officer, and the legality of the orders could have been challenged in the Election Petition before the Director under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules. The Court also held that the continuation of interim relief would further stall the declaration of the election result.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions pertained to the election of the members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jetpur Pavi, for its agriculturists constituency. The petitioners challenged the orders deleting the names of the managing committee members from the voters' list. The respondent No. 2 Director had cancelled the election programme due to the change in the limits of the market area and directed for a fresh election. The respondent No. 4 Authorized Officer, considering objections, passed orders deleting the names of the members of the managing committees of the petitioner Societies from the voters' list.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners failed to satisfy that they were Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies dispensing agricultural credit, as required by the amended Section 11(1)(i) of the APMC Act. The Court held that the impugned orders, though not happily worded, were within the jurisdiction of the Authorized Officer, and the legality of the orders could have been challenged in the Election Petition before the Director under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules. The Court also held that the continuation of interim relief would further stall the declaration of the election result.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies dispensing agricultural credit, as required by the amended Section 11(1)(i) of the APMC Act. The Court also considered the jurisdiction of the Authorized Officer and the availability of alternative remedy under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners failed to satisfy that they were Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies dispensing agricultural credit, as required by the amended Section 11(1)(i) of the APMC Act. The Court also held that the impugned orders, though not happily worded, were within the jurisdiction of the Authorized Officer, and the legality of the orders could have been challenged in the Election Petition before the Director under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules. The Court further held that the continuation of interim relief would further stall the declaration of the election result.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions on merits, and the continuation of the interim relief was rejected.
B.M. Trivedi, J.
1. This group of petitions pertains to the election of the members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jetpur Pavi (hereinafter referred to as "the said Committee") for its agriculturists constituency, and hence, this common judgment is being passed.
2. In all the petitions, the petitioner Societies have challenged the orders dated 1.2.2016 passed by the respondent No. 4, the Authorized Officer, deleting the names of the members of the Managing Committees of the respective petitioner Societies from the voters' list of the agriculturists constituency for the said election. All the petitions have similar facts and, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the facts of the Special Civil Application No. 2128 of 2016 filed by the Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited are considered for deciding all the petitions.
3. The petitioner Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited is a Cooperative Society registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to "the Societies Act"), since 30.6.1967. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jetpur Pavi is the Market Committee registered under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). As per the case of the petitioner Society, the election programme for the elections of the said Committee was earlier published by the respondent No. 2, the Director, according to which the elections were to be held on 21.5.2015. Accordingly, a preliminary voters' list was published on 4.3.2015 and the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society were included in the voters' list of the agriculturist constituency. The names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society were also continued in the final voters' list published on 6.4.2015 by the Authorized Officer, despite certain objections having been raised against the inclusion of the said names. Thereafter the said list was cancelled by the respondent No. 2 Director vide the order dated 5.5.2015, on account of the change in the limits of the market area of the said Committee. The petition being Special Civil Application No. 7285 of 2015 was filed by one Shri Govindbhai Gomabhai Rathwa, seeking directions against the concerned authority to complete the process of altering the limits of market area of the said Committee. This Court, vide the order dated 5.5.2015, disposed of the said petition, on the statement made by the learned AGP to the effect that the alteration of the limits shall be finalized as early as possible and thereafter fresh election programme shall be published. The learned AGP had also stated that until fresh election was held and newly elected Committee assumed the office, the appointment of Administrator would not be made, but the term of the Market Committee shall be extended till then. It appears that thereafter on the completion of the process of alteration of the limits of the market area of the said Committee, the respondent No. 2 had published fresh election programme on 19.9.2015 (Annexure-F), according to which the election was to be held on 21.12.2015. It is further case of the petitioner that as per the said programme the preliminary voters' list was published on 3.10.2015, including the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society. Against such inclusion, the respondent Nos. 5, 6, and 7 had submitted the objections before the respondent No. 4, Authorized Officer. Similar objections were raised against the inclusion of names of the managing committees of other petitioner Societies also. Hence, the respondent No. 4 after holding inquiry passed the common order dated 24.10.2015 (Annexure-I), deleting the names of the members of the Managing Committees of seventeen societies including the petition Societies, from the voters' list of agriculturist constituency. The petitioner along with other Societi
