Voter List Inclusion Post Election Notification Invalid: Gujarat High Court Upholds Order in APMC Election Dispute - 2025-04-15

Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Gujarat High Court Upholds Order Invalidating Voter List Inclusion in APMC Election

Ahmedabad, Gujarat – The High Court of Gujarat has dismissed appeals challenging a single judge’s decision that quashed orders including names in the voter list for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Bhatiya elections. The division bench, comprising Justices Biren Vaishnav and Maulik J. Shelat, upheld the earlier judgment, reinforcing the principle that voter eligibility must be determined before the election process commences.

Case Background

The appeals arose from a judgment concerning the voter list for the trader and cooperative marketing society constituencies in the APMC, Bhatiya elections. The original petitioner, Shree Kanaiya Khet Utpadan Kharid Vechan Sahakari Mandali Limited, contested the inclusion of Respondent Nos. 5 to 28 in the voter list. These respondents were granted licenses after the election process had been declared on August 13, 2021, and after the preliminary voter list was published.

The Authorized Officer had initially rejected the petitioner's objections, leading to the filing of a Special Civil Application. The Single Judge ruled in favour of the petitioner, quashing the Authorized Officer's orders and directing a fresh election process from the stage of preparing the voter list. Aggrieved by this decision, the newly included voters filed the present Letters Patent Appeals.

Arguments Presented

Appellants (Original Respondents):

Represented by Mr. Bharat T Rao, the appellants argued that the learned Single Judge should not have entertained the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Rule 28 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rules, 1965. They contended that they had applied for licenses before the election declaration, and delays in granting licenses by the District Registrar should not disqualify them. They argued their inclusion in the voter list was justified and legal. They cited Section 11(1)(ii) of The Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963, claiming it pertained to contesting elections, not voter qualification.

Respondents (Original Petitioners):

Represented by Mr. Dipan Desai , the respondents argued that the appellants were ineligible for inclusion as they did not meet the criteria under Section 11 of the Act. Specifically, they had not traded in the previous financial year as required, since their licenses were only granted post-election notification. Mr. Desai highlighted the Authorized Officer's inconsistent actions, issuing multiple voter lists on the same day, further demonstrating the flawed process. He argued that when fraud or illegality in the election process is evident, the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, even with an alternative remedy available.

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

The court extensively discussed precedents including:

Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited vs. R.D. Rohit: Established the principle that while alternative remedies exist, writ jurisdiction can be invoked in extraordinary circumstances.

Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari vs State of Gujarat: Defined the "relevant date" for voter eligibility as the date by which names should be communicated to the Authorized Officer, prior to election declaration.

Dolatbhai Prabhubhai Dumaniya vs. Director – Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance: Reinforced that eligibility acquired after the election process begins cannot be grounds for voter list inclusion.

Union Territory of Ladakh vs Jammu and Kashmir National Conference: Affirmed that constitutional courts should intervene when executive actions disturb a level playing field without justifiable basis.

The division bench emphasized the "relevant date" principle from Kalubhai Akabari , stating that eligibility must exist before the process of election begins. Licenses obtained after the election declaration date (August 13, 2021) and after the date the electoral roll was sent to the Authorized Officer (August 31, 2021) did not qualify the appellants for inclusion in the voter list.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

The court highlighted the flawed actions of the Authorized Officer:

>“What is also evident to make this exercise questionable, is that the Authorized Officer flip-flopped inasmuch as, by a letter bearing outward no.360 of 2021, he included the appellants’ names in the voters’ list. Subsequently, by a letter bearing outward no.361 of 2021, he deleted their names and once again by a letter bearing outward no.363 of 2021, he restored the names. Not only this, by two separate letters dated 09.11.2021, the Authorized Officer informed the Election Officer; by one letter sending all the three lists to him and by the second letter, he only sent the list bearing outward no.360 of 2021 including the appellant’s name in the voters’ list.”

The judgment also noted the concerning admission by the Authorized Officer that the inclusion of names was based on external advice, undermining independent decision-making:

>“What is evident from the affidavit which also the learned Single Judge has reproduced, is that the Authorized Officer has taken the decision that the inclusion of the appellants on the voters’ list was at the instance of an advocate Mr. Jitubhai Thakkar . Obviously therefore, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court…it is found that the authority i.e. the Authorized Officer in whom the discretion was vested did not act independently…”

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Single Judge's decision. The court found no error in the Single Judge’s intervention under Article 226, citing the extraordinary circumstances of a flawed election process and the Authorized Officer's failure to act lawfully and independently.

The court affirmed the direction for the election process for the trader and cooperative marketing societies’ constituencies to restart from the stage of Rule 8(1) of the APMC Rules, 1965, ensuring a fresh and lawful voter list is prepared. The request for continuation of interim relief was rejected.

This judgment reinforces the critical importance of adhering to established timelines and procedures in election processes, particularly regarding voter list preparation. It underscores that voter eligibility is determined at a fixed point before the election process officially commences and that election authorities must act independently and within the bounds of law.