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

2023 Supreme(Guj) 585

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
Joitabhai Magandas Patel - Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 2185 of 2023
Decided On : 14-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dipen Desai.
For the Respondent:Ms. Nidhi Vyas, AGP, Mr. Baiju Joshi, Mr. B.S. Patel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Umang H. Oza.

Headnote:

Rule - Election Dispute - Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 - Rule 6 of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market Rules, 1965 - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to include the petitioners' votes in the election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), Vijapur, as the election process was already over and the results declared. The petitioners were advised to resort to the remedy of filing an election petition/appeal under Rule 28 of the Rules, which had been done by the members of the respondent No.7-APMC. The court held that any observation made in favor of the petitioners by ignoring the provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules would indirectly set aside the election result without adjudicating the claim of the persons who had filed the election petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, members of a cooperative society, were restrained from voting in the election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), Vijapur, on the ground that they had ceased to be members of the Committee. The election process was already over and the respondent No.6 was elected as a Director of APMC.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition as the election process was already over and the results declared. The petitioners were advised to resort to the remedy of filing an election petition/appeal under Rule 28 of the Rules, which had been done by the members of the respondent No.7-APMC.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners' votes should be included in the election of APMC, Vijapur, despite the election process being over and the results declared.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that any observation made in favor of the petitioners by ignoring the provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules would indirectly set aside the election result without adjudicating the claim of the persons who had filed the election petition.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were advised to resort to the remedy of filing an election petition/appeal under Rule 28 of the Rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned advocates appear and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. The present writ petition stems out of the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the respondent No.4–Presiding Officer i.e. Election Officer, Agriculturist Constituency, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Vijapur, wherein and whereby the respondent No.4 has restrained the petitioner Nos.1 to 10 to vote in the agriculturist constituency for the election of Agriculture produce Market Committee (APMC), Vijapur, on 03.02.2023.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under :

3.1 The Vajapur Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited-Respondent no.7 is a cooperative society and is registered as a Cooperative Society under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (the Act). The election of the APMC, Vijapur came to be declared on 17.08.2022 by the respondent No.2–Director, Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance and accordingly, the election program dated 17.08.2022 was published.

3.2 The preliminary voters list was published on 02.09.2022. It is the case of the petitioners that the name of the society was included in the voters list in the capacity as members of the Managing Committee and the names of the petitioner Nos.1 to 10 were included in the voters list. There was an objection raised by one Shri Jayantibhai Ambalal Patel against the inclusion of the name of the petitioner Nos.1 to 10 in the voters list. It was also requested by him that the names of the newly elected Committee of the Society may be included in the voters list by deleting the names of the petitioner Nos.1 to 10.

3.3 The Authorised Officer, after hearing the objectors as well as the Committee of the Society vide order dated 22.09.2022 rejected the names of the objectors and continued the names of the petitioner Nos.1 to 10 in the voters list. The provisional voters list was published on 22.09.2022 and the names of the petitioner Nos.1 to 10 were continued in the voters list at Serial No.154 to 164.

3.4 The final voters list was published on 03.10.2022, wherein the names of the APMC and the members of the Managing Committee of the APMC were shown, which included the names of the petitioner Nos.1 to 10. Because of the declaration of the election of the Legislative Assembly, the election of the APMC were suspended and stopped and only after the declaration of the result of the Legislative Assembly elections, the election process of the APMC was commenced from the stage where it was stopped and accordingly, the respondent No.2–Director vide order dated 17.01.2023 issued the election program of the APMC for the remaining stages and according to which, the voting was to take place on 03.02.2023. It is the case of the petitioners that when the voting for the election commenced on 03.02.2023 and the petitioner Nos.1 to 10 went to vote at about 11:30 a.m., the respondent No.4–Presiding Officer restrained the petitioner Nos.1 to 10 from voting on the ground that the respondent No.5–Jayantibhai Girdharbhai Patel has raised the objections against permitting the petitioner Nos.1 to 10 from voting.

3.5 It appears that upon the insistence of the petitioners, the Presiding Officer passed the impugned order dated 03.02.2023. It is the case of the petitioners that the said order dated 03.02.2023 has been supplied to the petitioners at about 4:45 p.m. just minutes before completion of the voting.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi, appearing with learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai, for the petitioners has submitted that the Presiding Officer has acted de hors the statutory provisions of the Act and hence, the impugned order as well as the action taken by the Presiding Officer– respondent No.4 is required to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that if the petitioner Nos.1 to 10 were permitted to vote, the entire election of the concerned Committee of the Society would have been altered.

4.1 Learned Senio

        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