IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.J.DESAI, BIREN VAISHNAV, JJ.
Bhagat Chiragkumar Mukeshbhai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.398 of 2023, In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4092 of 2023, With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO.1 of 2023, CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO.1 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4082 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4084 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4086 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4094 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4093 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.399 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.400 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.401 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.402 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.403 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.404 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.405 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.406 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.407 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.408 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.409 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.410 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.411 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 412 of 2023, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 413 of 2023, In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 411 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4089 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4087 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4091 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4096 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4097 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4098 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4099 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4100 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4101 of 2023, In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4102 of 2023
Decided on : 13-04-2023
Agricultural Produce Market Committee - Quashing of Order - Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 - Rule 7, Rule 8, Section 11 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from an order quashing the removal of names from the voters' list for the Agriculture Produce Market Committee Bodeli, Tal. Sankheda, Dist. Chhotaudepur. The removal was based on objections raised by the appellants, claiming that the individuals were not agriculturists as per the APMC Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Authorized Officer and Cooperation Officer (Markets) had exceeded their jurisdiction in scrutinizing the voters' list and had committed errors in deciding issues beyond their scope and powers. The court dismissed the appeals and connected applications.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the Authorized Officer and Cooperation Officer (Markets) in scrutinizing the voters' list, the inclusion of names in the voters' list, and the availability of alternative remedy under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable if the order is ultra vires or nullity and/or ex-facie without jurisdiction. It also emphasized that the Election Tribunal is not vested with jurisdiction to examine whether licenses were granted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and connected applications.
JUDGMENT :
A.J. DESAI, J.
1. The present group of Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from a common oral order dated 14.3.2023 passed by learned Single Judge accepting the petitions filed by the private respondent and quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.2.2023 passed by the Authorized Officer and Cooperation Officer (Markets), Chhotaudepur by which names of some of the members of original petitioner (private respondent herein), as voters in the Agriculture Produce Market Committee Bodeli, Tal. Sankheda, Dist. Chhotaudepur were removed from the voters' list accepting the objections raised by the present appellants treating that they are not agriculturists as per the Bye-laws of the said APMC.
2. The appeals were listed on 24.3.2023 and considering the publication of election programme of the APMC, Bodeli, notice was made returnable on 28.3.2023. On 28.3.2023, learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela appeared for private respondents and requested for time and accordingly, the appeals were adjourned to 3.4.2023. Accordingly, the appeals were heard on 3.4.2023.
3. The short facts arise from the record are as under :-
3.1 That Director of Agricultural Marketing & Rural Finance, Gujarat State published the election programme of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bodeli on 18.1.2023. Part III of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'APMC Rules') provides the procedure for election of Market Committee. Under Rule 10 of the said APMC Rules, stages of election were declared in the said election programme issued by the Director of Agricultural Marketing & Rural Finance. Rule 7 of APMC Rules provides for supply of list of voters and for the present election in question, the list of voters for general election of APMC, Bodeli were to be supplied on 27.1.2023. As per Rule 7(2) of the APMC Rules, time to supply the preliminary voters' list was declared as 3.2.2023. As provided under Rule 8 (1) of APMC Rules, objectors may submit their reservations about inclusion and/or exclusion of the names in the preliminary voters' list.
3.2 The names of the original petitioners (private respondents herein) were included in the preliminary voters' list and, therefore, the present appellants raised objections against inclusion of some of the names of the present private respondent in each case before the Authorized Officer and Co-operation Officer (Markets) - respondent No.3 herein. The Authorized Officer and Co-operation Officer (Markets) by the order dated 22.2.2023 considered and accepted the objection by deleting the names of these persons which was subject matter of challenge before learned Single Judge.
3.3 Learned Single Judge after hearing the respective parties, accepted each petitions and quashed and set aside the order dated 22.2.2023 passed by Authorized Officer and Cooperation Officer (Markets) and directed to include the names of those members in the voters' list.
3.4 Hence these appeals.
4. Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dilip B. Rana, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has vehemently submitted that learned Single Judge has committed an error in quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.2.2023 passed by Authorized Officer and Co-operation Officer (Markets), who has after due consideration, found that those persons were not agriculturists and, therefore, learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the said order at the stage when the election process was going on.
4.1 Mr. Kavina would further submit that Section 11 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963 provides for (i) inclusion of those members in a Market Committee who are either agriculturists, whose names are enlisted in the voters' list published by the Election Commission of India for such market area who shall be elected by the members of managing committee of the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies dispensing agri
Mandropur (Fatehpur) Juth Seva Sahkari Mandali Limited v. State of Gujarat
Shri Pratagarh Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited v. Director, Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable if the order is ultra vires or nullity and/or ex-facie without ....
The court ruled that names cannot be included in the voters' list after the election declaration date, emphasizing the Authorized Officer's duty to act independently and in accordance with the law.
Eligibility for inclusion in the voters' list requires payment of market fees for the current year; failure to comply results in exclusion.
The court upheld the exclusion of petitioners from the voters list for failing to meet statutory eligibility requirements, emphasizing limited judicial intervention in ongoing election processes.
The court upheld the jurisdiction of the authorized officer to remove names from the voters' list if their election or nomination does not adhere to statutory guidelines.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants have an alternative remedy available under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules, and therefore, the petition under extraordinary jurisdict....
As competent authority of respondent-Corporation after considering the findings of inquiry report has come to the conclusion to impose the punishment on petitioner of removal from service which does ....
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....
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.