Gujarat High Court
Raghubhai Munjibhai Mungra vs Jamnagar District Cooperative Bank ... on 16 April, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 GUJ 321
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria, A.S. Supehia
C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 68 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16961 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 68 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ? No
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any No
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
RAGHUBHAI MUNJIBHAI MUNGRA
Versus
JAMNAGAR DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.NOTICE TO BE
SERVED THROUGH THE MANAGER & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAKASH JANI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR VIRAL K SHAH(5210) for
the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KAMAL B. TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MS MANISHA
LAVKUMAR SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MR. VINAY VISHEN
for the Respondent(s) No. 2, 3, 4
MR MIHIR THAKORE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR DIPEN DESAI(2481) for
the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 16/04/2021
Page 1 of 19
Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021
C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment dated 11th January, 2021 of learned Single Judge dismissing the Special Civil Application. In the petition, the petitioner-now appellant herein had prayed to set aside order dated 23rd December, 2020 passed by respondent No.3- Returning Officer rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner against the candidature of private respondent No.5 herein. It was further prayed to declare that the respondent No.5 was not eligible and qualified to contest the elections of the respondent No.1 Bank.
2. As per the election programme dated 04th December, 2020 declared by the Election Officer & Prant Officer, Jamnagar, the elections to the members of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.1- Jamnagar District Co-operative Bank Limited, which is a specified society under Section 74-C of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, the last date for submitting the nomination forms was 19th December, 2020 whereas the date of scrutiny was fixed to be 22nd December, 2020. The list of valid nominations was published on 24th December, 2020 and the date for withdrawal was between 28th December, 2020 and 01st January, 2021. The list of contesting candidates was scheduled to be published on 02nd January, 2021, the date of polling was fixed as 13th January, 2021 whereas the counting was to take place on 16th January, 2021 at the place notified and on the same Page 2 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT day the result was slated to be declared.
2.1 Prior to the election programme, the Election Officer by his Order-cum-Notification dated 23rd November, 2020 published the programme for publication of list of voters, whereunder the preliminary publication of list was to take place on 23rd November, 2020, the objections were required to be submitted by 02nd December, 2020, which were to be disposed of on 10th December, 2020 and the final publication of the voters list was to be done on 11th December, 2020. The petition appears to have been affirmed on 24th December, 2020, whereafter learned Single Judge was moved in the petition, who rendered his decision on 11th January, 2021.
3. It was on 22nd December, 2020 that the petitioner submitted an application raising objection to the nomination form submitted by the respondent No.5 citing bye-law No.30(ix)(c) of the bye-laws of the Bank which, provided that no member shall be eligible for being elected on the Board of Directors, inter alia if he has been convicted of criminal offence or offences involving moral turpitude. In that context the objection was raised that the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhrol, Jamnagar, upon trial of Criminal Case No.129 of 2008 held respondent No.5 to be guilty of offences under Section 143, 147, 353 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and he was convicted as per judgment and order dated 13th December, 2020 to Page 3 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT undergo imprisonment for two years. It was stated that the conviction was not stayed by the appellate court, though respondent No.5 was granted the bail. As per the impugned communication dated 23rd December, 2020, the objection of the petitioner was not accepted and he was communicated that nomination form of respondent No.5 was accepted.
3.1 Before proceeding further, an aspect may be noted, as informed by all the learned advocates for the parties, in relation to this very election, but in respect of different controversy, Special Leave Appeal No.10512 of 2020 has been pending before the Apex Court which arose from Letters Patent Appeal Nos.975 of 2020 and 980 of 2020. The Supreme Court has stayed the result of the election. When asked by this Court about the bearing of said pending controversy on the present case and the issue involved, all learned senior counsels and advocates appearing for the parties stated that the issue in this case is independent of the facts and issue in the said Special Leave to Appeal and the decision therein would not have any relation or bearing on the present dispute.
4. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Prakash Jani with learned advocate Mr.Viral K. Shah for the appellant, learned Advocate General Mr.Kamal Trivedi with learned Government Pleader Ms.Manisha Lavkumar assisted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Vinay Vishen for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir Thakore with learned Page 4 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT advocate Mr.Dipen Desai for respondent No.5.
4.1 Learned senior advocate for the petitioner with ready reference to the aforesaid bye-law No.30(ix)(c) and further relying on judgment and order of conviction and sentence of respondent No.5, submitted that in view of the fact that the respondent No.5 was convicted for the offences in question, he was liable to be declared disqualified from contesting the election. Virtually reiterating the contentions raised before learned Single Judge, learned senior advocate relied on Rule 23 of Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies Elections Rules, Committees Rules, 1982 which deal with the scrutiny of nomination papers. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 23, it was submitted, that the Returning Officer has to examine the nomination papers and decide all objections which may be to any nomination and may, either on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on the grounds mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (d). In Rule 23(2)(a), it is inter alia provided, which was sought to be highlighted on behalf of the petitioner, that one of the grounds for rejection of nomination was "that the candidate is disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat by or under the Act, Rules or bye-laws".
4.2 It was highlighted by learned senior advocate for the petitioner that Special Criminal Application was filed by the State seeking to withdraw the prosecution against respondent No.5, but Page 5 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT said petition was withdrawn on 13th October, 2020. Decisions were cited to submit that when an appeal is filed against conviction and sentence, normally the execution of sentence is suspended and not the conviction. It was further pinpointed that in the present case the conviction of respondent No.5 was not stayed or suspended. It was submitted that when respondent No.5 failed to satisfy the test of eligibility to be the member of Managing Committee, his nomination ought not to have been accepted. He drew attention to Section 145A of the Co-operative Societies Act to submit that thereunder a member of committee of any specified society if convicted by a court for any offence and sentence to imprisonment for not less than two years and unless a period of five years is lapsed since his release, such member- person shall be disqualified from being acting as member.
4.3 Learned senior advocate for the petitioner relied on decisions in Navjot Sing Siddhu v. State of Punjab [(2007) 2 SCC 574], Ravi Kant Patil v. Sarvabhouma Bagali [(2007) 1 SCC 673], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Roshan Lal Saini [(2012) 12 SCC 390] to canvass the principle as well as the grounds as to when the appellate court can suspend the order of conviction and the conditions for such suspension. Decision of the Apex Court in Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Sing [1994 SCC 211] and also in Pundlik v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 7 SCC 181] were pressed into service to submit that the petition under Article 226 was entertainable in the facts of the Page 6 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT case. Decision of the Apex Court in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar [(2000) 8 SCC 216] and certain other decisions of this Court were pressed into service to contend that it was permissible for the Court to grant relief in the middle of the election process. It was submitted that the facts and circumstances of this case offer a valid ground for exercising the writ jurisdiction.
4.4 It was submitted that impugned order was passed in breach of natural justice and that the Returning Officer has no discretion left not to reject the nomination paper when the respondent No.5 was convicted for an offence. He also highlighted the nature of offence in which respondent No.5 was involved, to further submit that it could be said to be the offence involving moral turpitude.
4.5 Decisions in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [(1996) 4 SCC 17] and in State Bank of India v. P. Soupramaniane [(2019) 18 SCC 135] were referred to seeking to convey as to what is the meaning and "concept of moral turpitude". In Pawan Kumar (supra) it was held that conviction of the appellant under Section 294, IPC per se would not establish moral turpitude unless the tests in that regard laid down in the policy decision of Haryana Government were satisfied. In other mentioned judgment it was observed that the acts disclosing depravity and wickedness of character can be characterised as offence involving moral turpitude. It was stated that the factors to be considered while inferring moral Page 7 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT turpitude are-person committing offence, against whom committed, manner and circumstances in which it is alleged to have been committed and values of society.
4.6 On the other hand, learned Advocate General for the State and its authorities, and learned senior advocate for respondent No.5 submitted that under Rule 23 of the aforesaid Rules of 1982, inquiry to be conducted by the Returning Officer is of summary nature. It is submitted that the disqualification of the member of the Managing Committee is provided in Section 145F of the Co-operative Societies Act. It was submitted that there could not be a disqualification under the bye-law, which was inconsistent with the statutory provision. It was next submitted that the Returning Officer was justified in undertaking a summary inquiry to reject the objection of the petitioner. Learned senior advocates for the respondents pressed into service, by referring to and relying on several decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court, the principle that elections in question were already underway and in that view, this Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interject the election process, more particularly when petitioner has got a remedy of filing an election petition under the statute.
4.7 While learned Advocate General relied on several decisions to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, learned senior advocate for respondent No.5 also cited caravan of judgments to Page 8 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT counter the case of the petitioner and to submit further that remedy of the petitioner, in any case, was after the elections were over, by filing an election petition in accordance with law.
4.8 On the basis of decision in Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank [(1984) 2 SCC 50] it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the bye-laws framed by the Co-operative Bank cannot be held to be law or to have force of law and that they do not have statutory character. It was submitted that when they stand in conflict of legislative enactment, they would be ultra vires. On the basis of Rajkot District Co-operative Bank v. State of Gujarat [(2015) 13 SCC 401] it was submitted that when the bye-law is not amended in accordance with the statutory rule, the same would not come in way of the operation of the Rule. The decisions of this Court in Vitthodar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandli v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.16941 of 2016 decided on 19th October, 2016 and in Mehsana Taluka Co-operative Purchase & Sales Union v. Director [2017(3) GLR 2692] were relied on to reiterate the principle that interference in the on-going election process would not be permissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution even on a strong ground on merit as the remedy of filing election petition has to be exhausted only after the completion of elections under Section 145U of the Co- operative Societies Act.
Page 9 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT5. On the aspect canvassed about the nature of inquiry to be undertaken by the Returning Officer while scrutinising the nomination form, learned Single Judge has rightly taken a view that the inquiry envisaged in law to be conducted by the Returning Officer was of summary nature. Relying on the decision of this Court in Arvindbhai Singabhai Gamit v. Election Officer & Deputy Collector [2012 (3) GLH 81], it was so concluded by learned Single Judge. In Arvindbhai Singabhai Gamit (supra), the Division Bench discussed the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules to notice the integrated scheme, to hold that the nature of scrutiny of nomination paper to be undertaken by the Scrutinising Officer is restricted and expeditious in nature. It was observed that the Returning Officer shall not have jurisdiction or legal authority to delve into the aspect of right of the nominee to stand for election if his name is already in the list of voters.
5.1 The Division Bench held that the Returning Officer makes only a summary inquiry, observing thus, "6. That leads to the inescapable conclusion that the authority of the returning officer in examining nomination papers and deciding all objections is restricted to only making a summary enquiry, if any, as to whether the candidate has incurred any disqualification for being elected and whether the nomination was in order and complying with the relevant Rules. As the title and language of Rule 23 clearly suggests, it is the scrutiny of nomination papers and, by no stretch, an adjudication of disqualification of the candidate that falls within statutory duty of the returning officer."
Page 10 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT5.1.1 It was further stated, "6. ... ... ... If he transgresses that limit and enters into the area of accepting or collecting evidence regarding alleged disqualification of a candidate and indulges in exercise of weighing evidence, without any means or power to decide upon genuineness or reliability of any evidence, the minimum requirement of compliance with the principles of natural justice would arise. However, clear operative words in the Rule being 'summary inquiry' and not an adjudication, the returning officer would obviously be required to decide the issue of disqualification or rejection or acceptance of the nomination paper only on the basis of material placed before him;"
5.2 As rightly held, at the stage of scrutinising the nomination papers, detailed examination of aspects forming part of rival stand would not be undertaken. In accepting or rejecting the nomination paper, the Returning Officer is not expected to take a posture of or to act as an adjudicator. The Returning Officer will have to examine several nomination forms within short time. His function stands restricted to undertake the summary inquiry in relation to validity of a nomination paper.
5.3 By following the law laid down by Division Bench decision in Arvindbhai Singabhai Gamit (supra), when learned Single Judge has reiterated the nature of inquiry by the Returning Officer to be summary in nature, we are entirely in agreement with the said proposition. It was on the basis of such summary inquiry which the Returning Officer was expected in law to undertake, he has accepted the nomination of respondent No.5, rejecting the objection of the petitioner. It was indeed not the stage of a detail Page 11 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT inquiry. We rest, recording thus, without going into or expressing anything on the merit part with regard to the acceptance of nomination form.
5.4 Learned Single Judge refused to entertain the petition resting on the ground that the elections were at advance stage. As already noticed, the petition was affirmed on 24th December, 2020. Seen in the context of the election schedule, it was the day when the election programme was already underway on 24th December, 2020 and the stage had reached to be that of publication of list of validly nominated candidates. When learned Single Judge rendered his decision on 11th January, 2021 the only stage left in the already ticking election clock was the date of polling and counting, which were to take place on 13th January, 2021 and 15th January, 2021 respectively. Learned Single Judge held that the petitioner has the remedy of filing election petition and that interjecting in the midst of the election process will not be in the interest of the elections themselves.
5.5 Section 145U of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 read with Rule 82 of Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1982, is the remedy available of filing election petition. Section 145U reads as under.
145U. Disputes relating to elections to be submitted to the Tribunal.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 96 or any other provisions of this Act, any dispute relating to Page 12 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT an election shall be referred to the Tribunal, (2) Such reference may be made by an aggrieved party by presenting an election petition to the Tribunal:
Provided that no such petition shall be made till after the final result of the election is declared and where any such petition is made it shall not be admitted by the Tribunal unless it is made within two months from the date of such declaration:
Provided further that, the Tribunal may admit any petition after the expiry of that period, if the petitioner satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the petition within the said period.
(3) In exercising the functions conferred on it by or under this Chapter, the Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court in respect of-
(a) proof of facts by affidavit;
(b) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(c) compelling discovery or the production of documents, and
(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses.
In the case of any such affidavit, an officer appointed by the Tribunal in this behalf may administer the oath to the deponent.
(4) Subject to any regulations made by the Tribunal in this behalf, any such petition shall be heard and disposed of by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible. An order made by the Tribunal on such petition shall be final and conclusive and shall not be called in question in any Court.
5.6 As the above Section provides for submission of dispute relating to election to the Tribunal, Rule 82 of 1982 Rules mentions the grounds for declaring the elections as void, extracted hereunder.
Grounds for declaring election to be void.-If the Page 13 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT Government is of opinion:-
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not under these rules, or
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his Election Agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his Election Agent, or
(c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected, or
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns as returned candidate, has been materially affected-
(i) by the improper acceptance of any
nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an agent other than his Election Agent, or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any Vote or the reception of any Vote which is void, or
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or any rules made thereunder, the Government shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.
5.7 As could be immediately noticed, the improper rejection or acceptance of nomination paper is one of the clear grounds mentioned in the Rule for declaring the election to be void. It is therefore permissible for the petitioner to get adjudicated his objections to the acceptance of nomination of respondent No.5 and challenging his election by filing the election petition, in view of the above provisions of Section 145U read with Rule 82.
6. It is a cardinal principle accepted, Page 14 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT applied, reiterated and followed that High Court will not, in all ordinary circumstances, interfere with the election process to interrupt, interfere or stall such democratic process and that all election disputes arising in the middle of the elections shall be postponed for their resolution until after the elections are over, to be dealt with in accordance with the machinery provided under the statute therefor.
6.1 In Vitthodar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandli (supra) relied on by the respondents in the context of Section 145U of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act read with Rule 128 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965, this Court enunciated the law on the issue to observe that though the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable, the powers are to be exercised only in extra-ordinary or special circumstances such as where the order is ultra vires or nullity or ex facie without jurisdiction. The principles were reiterated in Mehsana Taluka Co- operative Purchase & Sales Union (supra), which decision came to be confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1255 of 2016 and other cognate Appeals decided on 29th November, 2016.
6.2 In yet another decision of Division Bench of this Court in Kanubhai Chhaganbhai Patel v. Director of Agricultural Marketing & Rural Finance [2004 (3) GLR 2718], which involved the issue of rejection of nomination paper, after considering its earlier Page 15 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT decisions in Kanjibhai Babaldas Patel v. Election Officer, APMC Visnagar [42 (1) GLR 260], Mehsana District Sales & Purchase Union v. State of Gujarat [1988 (2) GLR 1060] observed to hold that, "any interference after the scrutiny of nominations would create a real possibility of the election process being interrupted, obstructed or delayed. This is why in the aforesaid four decisions of the Division Bench of this Court it has been laid down that Rule 28 provides an efficacious remedy and when the election process is started, Court would refuse to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.". Reiterating the principle, the Court refused to go into the nature of dispute, that is the objections raised against the validity of nominations and did not examine whether Rule is violated to find out whether the Scrutiny Officer had committed any error in rejecting or accepting the nomination.
6.3 In Shri Sant Sagduru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 8 SCC 509], the Apex Court in the context of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 read with Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971 stated and held, "In view of our finding that preparation of the electoral roll being an intermediate stage in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified society and the election process having been set in motion, it is well settled that the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. It is Page 16 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT not disputed that the election in question has already been held and the result thereof has been stayed by an order of this Court, and once the result of the election is declared, it would be open to the appellants to challenge the election of the returned candidate. If aggrieved, by means of an election petition before the Election Tribunal." (Para 12) 6.4 The trite proposition about non-interference in election process, howsoever the ground canvassed may appear to be strong, and that election disputes are to be gone into and settled after the elections are over as per the machinery provided for resolution of such disputes, has been holding the field right from the decision in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer [AIR 1952 SC 64], which statement of law found its further exposition in a more recent decision in Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Vishwanath [(2016) 4 SCC 429], "... as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with he process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without the court's order. Very often, for frivolous reasons, candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election. ... ... " (Para 15) 6.5 In Mehsana Taluka Co-operative Purchase & Sales Union (supra), following were the observations Page 17 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT made.
"5.1.2 The election jurisprudence, its principles and the applicability of election laws have different delineations and dimensions. They indeed operate, and has to be allowed to operate in their own way so as to sub-serve a higher purpose. In the election which is a democratic process, what is fundamental is the event of election. Neither the right to vote or to participate in election as voter or as a contesting candidate, is perceived to be a fundamental right. They are the rights guarded by statutory framework and could be exercised only in the manner the statute may provide. What is at stake is the interest of whole body which goes to the democratic process of elections. Election jurisprudence hardly emphasise rights of individuals. Election rights are the democratic rights operating as a whole and for collective end."
7. In view of the categorical law settled as above, the learned Single Judge was eminently justified in taking the view that the petitioner had have the remedy of filing of election petition, thereby not interfering with the election process to the elections of respondent No.1 District Co- operative Bank to ultimately dismiss the writ petition. For the reasons we have recorded hereinabove, we upheld such decision of learned Single Judge in dismissing the petition.
8. While endorsing to the decision of learned Single Judge and the said ground of dismissal of petition, we make it clear that we have not gone into, nor have expressed, any opinion on merits. It will be open for the petitioner to invoke the remedy of filing election petition in accordance with law.
9. The Letters Patent Appeal fails. The same is Page 18 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021 C/LPA/68/2021 CAV JUDGMENT dismissed.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION In view of order of even date passed in the main Letters Patent Appeal, no orders are required to be passed in the present Civil Application. It stands disposed of accordingly.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J) (A. S. SUPEHIA, J) ANUP Page 19 of 19 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 16 21:18:41 IST 2021