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

2022 Supreme(Guj) 532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
JITENDRABHAI ARJANBHAI ROY – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AND RURAL FINANCE – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7772 of 2022
Decided on : 05-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR BM MANGUKIYA, MS BELA A PRAJAPATI
For the Respondent: G K VAGHANI, MR ISHAN JOSHI, AGP

The exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list does not warrant interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ-applicant was relegate to avail statutory remedy by filing an election petition under Rule 28 of the Rules, which is an efficacious remedy.

Headnote:

Election Petition - Inclusion in Voters' List - Section 11(1)(2) of the Act - The court held that the exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ-applicant was relegate to avail statutory remedy by filing an election petition under Rule 28 of the Rules, which is an efficacious remedy.

Fact of the Case:

The writ-applicant challenged the order of the respondent No.3, which directed to delete the name of the writ-applicant from the preliminary voters’ list on the ground of not holding a trader's license in the previous financial year. The respondent No.5 raised objections to the inclusion of the writ-applicant's name in the voters’ list.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list does not warrant interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ-applicant was relegate to avail statutory remedy by filing an election petition under Rule 28 of the Rules, which is an efficacious remedy.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality, validity, and propriety of the action of the respondent No.3 in deleting the name of the writ-applicant from the preliminary voters’ list, and the applicability of Section 11(1)(2) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ-applicant was relegate to avail statutory remedy by filing an election petition under Rule 28 of the Rules, which is an efficacious remedy.

Final Decision: The present writ application was dismissed, and the writ-applicant was relegate to avail statutory remedy by filing an election petition under Rule 28 of the Rules.

ORDER :

1. The present writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

    “(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, and to quash and set aside the impugned order dated April 09, 2022, Annexure-K, whereby the respondent no.3 has directed to delete the name of the petitioner from the list of voters of the respondent Committee;

(B) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned judgment and order dated April 09, 2022, Annexure-K, and further direct that the name of the petitioner be included in the list of voters of the Traders Constituency of the respondent Committee and the petitioner be permitted to take part in the election process of the respondent committee;

(C) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.”

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ application, which read thus:-

2.1 By way of present writ-application the writ-applicant herein has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the action of the respondent No.3 of passing the order dated 9.4.2022 whereby the name of the writ-applicant has been ordered to be deleted from the preliminary voters’ list on the ground that the writ-applicant was not holding general license of trader in the financial year 2020-21 at the instance of the objections filed by the respondent No.5.

2.2 The Director – respondent No.1 in exercise of powers conferred upon him declared the election programme dated 2.3.2022 and appointed the respondent No.3 as authorised officer and the respondent No.2 as the election authority. As per the election programme the election has been declared on 8.3.2022. 16.3.2022 came to be fixed for the date on which the Authorized Officer was supposed to be provided with the preliminary voters’ list. 21.3.2022 was fixed for publication of the first preliminary voters’ list. The objections were to be accepted till 4.4.2022. The revised preliminary list of voters was to be published on 9.4.2022. The objection thereto were invited till 16.4.2022 and publication of the final voters’ list came to be fixed on 22.4.2022. The nomination of the same came to be fixed on 21.5.2022. The date of voting is fixed on 2.6.2022 and counting of votes has been fixed on 3.6.2022. Copy of the election programme is duly produced at Annexure-D.

2.3 The preliminary voters’ list of the Traders constituency contained 12 names. The name of the writ-applicant appeared at Sr. No.6 in the said list. The said list is produced at Annexure-E to the petition. The objections came to be raised by the respondent No.5 on 2.4.2022 objecting to the inclusion of the name of the writ-applicant in the said voters’ list on the ground that the writ-applicant is not holding GST number, there is no proprietary deed, there is no registration of professional tax, there is no current account in the bank, there is no registration in the Municipality, there is no license of previous year and no income-tax return.

2.4 According to the writ-applicant, the said objections came to be raised against the writ-applicant by one S. B. Patel. In fact, no person named S. B. Patel appears in the list of voters. At a later point of time through an application the respondent No.5 clarified that the objector is actually B. S. Patel and not S. B. Patel. The said explanation is duly produced at Annexure-H, I and J. The respondent No.3 by order dated 9.4.2022 accepted the objections raised by the respondent No.5 and held that in pursuant to the Sub-clause (2) of Sub-section(1) of Section 11 of the Act the writ-applicant is not eligible to be included in the voters’ list and, therefore, directed that the name of the writ-applicant be deleted from the preliminary voters’ list of the trader’s constituency. The said order dated 9.4.2022 is duly produced at page-4

        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