IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Sherasiya Inayat Husainbhai – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 2233 Of 2023
Decided On : 15-02-2023
Delimitation - Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act - Rule 3(A)(9) of the Rules, 1982 - The court quashed and set aside the Amendment Order of delimitation of constituencies passed by respondent No. 2 on 6.2.2023 and directed the election to be held as per the delimitation order dated 19.01.2023.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, authorized representatives of primary cooperative societies, challenged the Amendment Order of delimitation of constituencies and the final voter list published by respondent No. 2. They argued that the order dated 19.01.2023 for delimitation of constituencies was final and could not be treated as provisional.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to review his own order passed under Rule 3(A)(9) of the Rules, 1982. The impugned order dated 06.02.2023 was deemed illegal and not tenable, and was quashed and set aside.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Deputy Collector had the authority to pass an amended order of delimitation after the order dated 19.01.2023 was issued.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once an order is passed under Rule 3(A)(9) of the Rules, 1982, it cannot be considered as provisional and the Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to review his own order. The election was directed to be held as per the delimitation order dated 19.01.2023.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the Amendment Order of delimitation of constituencies passed by respondent No. 2 on 6.2.2023 and directed the election to be held as per the delimitation order dated 19.01.2023.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Bharat T. Rao for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Though served, no one appears for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
2. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Notice of rule is not required to be issued upon respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as the issues involved in this petition are purely of legal nature and character and sufficient assistance is rendered by the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jayswal.
3. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for both the sides, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay the further proceedings for the election of Vankaner Taluka Kharid Vechan Sahakari Sangh Ltd. for the reasons stated in the memo of the petition and in the interest of justice.”
5. Brief facts of the case are as under:
5.1 The petitioners are authorised representatives of their respective primary cooperative societies registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter, “the Act”) since years. The primary cooperative societies to which the petitioners belong to are dispensing agriculture credit to its members. The societies are affiliated with The Wankaner Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. (hereinafter, “the Sangh”).
5.2 The Election of Managing Committee of the Sangh was held in the year 2017 under the provisions of the Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies (Elections to Committees) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter, “the Rules, 1982”). The petitioner No. 4 is the elected Member and Chairman of the Sangh. The term of the Managing Committee had expired on 23.01.2023. The Sangh called its Annual General Meeting (AGM) on 17.09.2022, Agenda of which, came to be circulated on 06.09.2022 in due compliance with the provisions of Rule 3(A)(3) of the Rules, 1982. Item No. 8 of the Agenda was with regard to delimitation of constituencies as per bye-law No. 29 of the byelaws of the Sangh.
5.3 In the meeting held on 17.09.2022 in which all 47 Members of the General Board were present, 12 constituencies came to be made of which, each constituency got four primary cooperative societies which are affiliated to the Sangh. Out of 47 Members, 04 members had objected such delimitation made by the General Board. Such objection was overruled keeping in view the byelaws of the Sangh by majority decision.
5.4 On 18.09.2022, the proceedings of the AGM was published on the Notice Board of the Sangh, however, as required under the Rules, 1982, nobody raised any objection against the delimitation of the constituencies.
5.5 On 14.11.2022, the Sangh forwarded a proposal to the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Morbi as required for the purpose of holding the election of the Managing Committee, copy thereof, came to be forwarded to the Collector, Morbi and the Dep
Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Others
The Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to review his own order passed under Rule 3(A)(9) of the Rules, 1982.
Delimitation exercises must adhere strictly to statutory provisions to ensure free and fair elections; failing to do so constitutes a colorable exercise of power.
Limited scope of judicial review in administrative actions and impermissibility of interference in electoral matters after the commencement of the election process
Delimitation orders issued under constitutional provisions are immune from judicial review barring exceptional circumstances; challenges to their validity cannot be entertained under Article 226 of t....
The court ruled that the provisional voters' list must be based on the correct date as per statutory rules, emphasizing compliance with election regulations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in administrative actions, emphasizing the prevention of arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias,....
The court emphasized that the inclusion or exclusion of names in the voters' list does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and should be addressed through an elect....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of legal provisions related to the term of the Municipal Corporation, the constitution of the Delimitation Board, and the scope ....
The court emphasized that the inclusion or exclusion of names in the voters' list does not warrant interference under Article 226, and highlighted the availability of an efficacious remedy through an....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.