Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Aniruddha P. Mayee, J.
M/s. B. Govindbhai And Co. & Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 15969 of 2024
Decided On : 11-12-2024
(A) Gujarat Agricultural Produce Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963 - Proviso to Section 11(1)(iii) - Deletion of names from provisional voters list - Petitioners' names deleted without notice or hearing, violating natural justice principles - Court emphasized that voting rights are statutory and should follow legal provisions. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 8)
(B) Alternative remedy - Court held that aggrieved parties should pursue statutory mechanisms for election disputes, and writ jurisdiction should be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, traders in APMC Unjha, had their names deleted from the provisional voters list without notice or hearing, leading to the present writ petition.
Findings of Court:
Court ruled that the petitioners must pursue the alternative remedy under Rule 28 of the Rules, 1965.
Issues: The main issues were the violation of natural justice in deleting names and the interpretation of the legal provision regarding voting eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the authorized officer's action was in accordance with the law and that the deletion of names did not warrant extraordinary intervention under Article 226.
Result: Special Civil Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Aniruddha P. Mayee, J.
1. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs:-
(B) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding the authorised officer to include the names of the petitioners in the voters list of traders' constituency for the elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee Unjha and permit the petitioners to cast their votes from the traders constituency in the elections of APMC Unjha.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the authorised officer to permit the petitioners to vote in the traders' constituency for the elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee Unjha.
2. The brief facts of the petitioners case is that, the petitioners are the traders operating in the market yard of Agriculture Produce Market Committee [“APMC” for short], Unjha – respondent No.5 herein. That the respondent No.2 – Director of Agricultural Marketing & Rural Finance, Gandhinagar has issued election programme on 18.9.2024 whereby the preliminary voters list was published on 3.10.2024. The provisional voters list was published on 22.10.2024 and the final voters list came to be published on 4.11.2024 and the elections are to be held on 16.12.2024. That the petitioners names have been included in the Preliminary voters list, however, their names have been deleted from the Provisional voters list. That no notice came to be issued before deleting the names of the petitioners nor any opportunity of hearing has been given. That thereafter the petitioners by way of letter dated 24.10.2024 requested the authorized officer that their names were wrongly deleted from the voters list and that they are ready and willing to change the name of the authorized person who is authorised to vote on behalf of each of the petitioners and the authorized officer was requested to re-consider its decision to include the names of the petitioners in the voters list. That the authorized officer by communication dated 4.11.2024 refused to reconsider its decision on the ground that he has no authority to review his decision. That on 4.11.2024, the final voters list came to be published wherein the petitioners names are not included.
Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present Special Civil Application.
3. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the names of the petitioners are wrongly deleted from the Provisional voters list. He submits that the petitioners had communicated to the authorized officer that they are ready and willing to change the name of the authorized person, who has been nominated on behalf of each of the petitioners, to vote on their behalf. He submits that the names of the petitioners have been deleted from the voters list on frivolous ground. He further submits that there was no any objection against the names of the petitioners being included in the provisional voters list. Further, before deleting the names of the petitioners from the voters list neither any notice has been issued to the petitioners nor any opportunity of hearing has been given and thereby, the action of the authorized officer is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that by impugned action of the authorized officer, voting right of the petitioners have been taken away even though they are valid members of the traders constituency. He submits that this Court in various decisions held that before deletion of names from
Voting rights are statutory and must adhere to legal provisions, requiring proper notice and opportunity before deletion from voters list.
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....
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 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 r....
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 emphasized that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be exercised when there is a remedy in filing an election petition, and that all election disputes arisin....
The court upheld the procedural validity of excluding a representative's name from the voters' list under cooperative society rules, affirming no breach requiring a hearing prior to such an action.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
