Point of Law : Preliminary object as raised by the respondent required to be upheld inasmuch as the petitions challenging the decision of the Election Officer of the petitioner trust would not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the same are hereby dismissed as not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

1. learned Senior Counsel Shri Mehul S. Shah with learned Advocate Shri Jenil Shah for the petitioner in all the four petitions, learned Senior Counsel Shri Percy Kavina with learned Advocate Shri S.J. Adesara for the respondent No.1 in Special Civil Application No.10967 of 2021 and learned Senior Counsel Shri Devang S. Nanavati with learned Advocate Shri M.K. Purohit for the respondent No.1 in Special Civil Application Nos.10968 of 2021, 10969 of 2021 and 10971 of 2021 and learned AGP Shri Ishan Joshi for respondent No.2 in all four matters.

2. In all four matters, orders passed by the respondent No.3 Election Officer for the election to Rajkumar College Trust, Rajkot is under challenge, whereby names of the respective respondent No.1 in all four matters have been directed to be included in the electoral role of Rajkumar College Trust for Group A – Salute States. Since the issue raised in all four matters being similar, all the matters have been heard together and whereas a common order is being passed in all four matters.

3. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel Shri Kavina and learned Senior Counsel Shri Devang Nanavati have raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present petition before this Court.

4. Learned Senior Counsels for the respondent No.1 in all four matters have submitted that the order under challenge is passed by an Election Officer of a Public Trust and whereas it is neither a statutory nor a public authority against the order of which a writ petition invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would lie. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsels that there is neither any issue of public law involved nor public law element involved and hence, a writ petition before this Court would not be maintainable. Learned Senior Counsels have further submitted that apart from the issue of maintainability of the petitions, since the petitioners have challenged an order of including names of voter in voters’ list therefore, as per the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Daheda Group Sava Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs. R.D. Rohit reported in 2006 (1) GCD 211, a writ petition under Article 226 would not lie against the same. Learned Senior Counsels would qualify their submissions made by relying upon the judgment of the Full Bench as stated hereinabove by submitting that while the findings of the Full Bench was with regard to Rule 28 of the Gujarat Agricultural Marketing Produce Committee Rules, 1965, yet according to the Learned Senior Counsels, findings of the Full Bench would apply with equal or even more force in the facts of the present case, more particularly, since the said decision was with regard to an election being held under the Statute whereas in the present case, the election being held as per the Rules of the Trust. Learned Senior Counsels for the respondent No.1 have further submitted that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy in approaching the competent Authority under Section 22 of the Gujarat Public Trust Act and whereas according to the learned Senior Counsels, the position is no more res integra as in similar circumstance, learned Singe Judge had arrived at such findings which had been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.5103 of 2008 and Letters Patent Appeal No.310 of 2008 respectively. Learned Senior Counsels have therefore, submitted that since the election is of a Charitable Trust and the order being passed by an Election Officer of the said Trust, therefore, the writ petition would not lie, inclusion of names in the voters’ list could not be termed as an extraordinary circumstances, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and on the ground of the petitioners having an alternative efficacious remedy in filing application under Section 22 of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, therefore, this writ petition may not be entertained by this