Gujarat High Court
Khambhadia Taluka Sahakari Kharid ... vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 23 January, 2015
Bench: M.R. Shah, G.B.Shah
C/SCA/1578/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1578 of 2015
==========================================
===
KHAMBHADIA TALUKA SAHAKARI KHARID VECHAN SANGH
LTD....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR VC VAGHELA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. VISHRUT JANI ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No.
1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date : 23/01/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
"B. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of prohibition or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing and commanding the respondent authority to hold the election according to the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and Rules 1965 framed there under ignoring the provisions of amended byelaw no.30(ix)(d) of respondent no.5 Bank;
C. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ order declaring amended byelaw no. 30(ix)(d) of respondent no.5 Bank prescribing ineligibility to contest the election as illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India;
D. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to accept and include the names of petitioners and other members in the voters list and allow them to contest the election ignoring the provisions of byelaw no. 30(ix)(d) of respondent no.5 Bank and allow the petitioners to take part in the election of respondent no.5 Bank;"Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/1578/2015 ORDER
2.0. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the relevant bye law no. 30(ix)(d) of respondent no.5 Bank, which is now challenged has been amended in the year 2010 and the same has operated and in operation since then. It is an admitted position that till date, the petitioner did not challenge the amended bye law no.30(ix)(d) of respondent no.5 Bank. The petitioner as such, accepted the amended bye law no.30(ix)(d) of respondent no.5 Bank. Under the circumstances, as such, now it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the said amended bye law no. 30(ix)(d) of respondent no.5 Bank, after a period of approximately more than 4 years, more particularly, when the petitioner did not thought it fit to challenge the same and as such accepted the same.
3.0. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that the election of the respondent no.5 bank has already been declared and the election process has already began in the month of January and even the preliminary voters' list has already been published and final voters' list to be published on 29.01.2015. It is only after the preliminary voters' list is published and even after the date for raising the objection against the preliminary voters' list has gone / expired, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application for the aforesaid reliefs.
4.0. It is not in dispute and it cannot be said that as such the election process has begun. The challenge to the amended byelaw no. 30(ix)(d) of respondent no.5 Bank by the petitioner now is at a belated stage and if the reliefs, which are prayed / sought in the present Special Civil Application is granting at this stage, then it is likely to disturb the entire election process and is likely to affect other persons also. As per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court, no relief can be granted, if it is likely to affect the election process. Under the circumstances, when now election process has Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/1578/2015 ORDER already begun and even as observed herein above, the petitioners did not challenge the amendment in the byelaw no. 30(ix)(d) of respondent no.5 Bank till the date which is in operation since the year 2010, which is challenged now, more particularly, after election process has begun, present petition is not entertained at this stage, now as it is likely to disturb the entire election process. Hence, present petition is dismissed.
sd/ (M.R.SHAH, J.) sd/ (G.B.SHAH, J.) Kaushik Page 3 of 3