Gujarat High Court
C/Lpa/836/2014 Judgment vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 16 October, 2014
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel, C.L. Soni
C/LPA/836/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 836 of 2014
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4164 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8498 of 2014
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 836 of 2014
With
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 839 of 2014
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4164 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8549 of 2014
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 839 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9978 of 2014
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 839 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI Sd/-
=========================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the No
judgment ?
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 No
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No
===========================================================
Page 1 of 5
C/LPA/836/2014 JUDGMENT
PATEL RAJENDRAKUMAR AMRUTLAL & 4
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 21
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. ARCHIT P JANI, ADVOCATE for the Appellants
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 10
MR RUTVIJ OZA & MR KM ANTANI, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR CHIRAG B PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4 - 5
MR PRATIK B BAROT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 17
MR SHIRISH JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 7 , 9
MR. S N THAKKAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 14 - 15
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 6 , 8 , 11 - 13 , 16 , 18
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 16/10/2014
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
1. ADMIT. Learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service of notice of admission.
2. Only question to be considered is the mode and manner of holding election by the respondent No.4 Bank for its members of Managing Committee/ Directors. The Bye-law provides that election shall be held as per the Election Rules at the Annual General Meeting. The Election Rules provide for entitlement of the members for participating at the election. The mode and manner in which the members are to be intimated is silent. Bye-law No.22 provides that 14 days' notice to be given to members concerned for participating at the Annual General Meeting. Conjoint reading of the Bye-laws with Page 2 of 5 C/LPA/836/2014 JUDGMENT the Election Rules would show that intimation to members is a must. In the present case, the election program was published at the office of the Panchayat, Mamlatdar, etc. but, neither in the newspaper nor any specific intimation was given to the members. It has been stated at the bar that there are more than 20,000 members spreaded over in more than four Talukas. It is undisputed position that the election program has not been published in any of the newspapers having circulation in the area nor members of the respondent Bank were intimated about the time and place at which the election was to be held. Under these circumstances, so-called election, which is stated to be as uncontested, in our prima facie view could only be said as no election in the eye of law and/or it can rather be said as not held through the democratic process in accordance with the Bye-laws and the Election Rules. Since the members are not intimated well in time about the election and consequently, they can be said as deprived of participation at the election.
3. We would have further considered the matter, but learned counsel appearing for the Bank and the Election Officer Mr. Patel as well as Mr. Thakkar appearing for the so-called elected Directors of the Bank have declared that they have no objection if election is held afresh after giving due publication in the newspaper having circulation in the area and such election may be supervised by an officer who may be nominated by this Court. Learned counsel Mr. Joshi appearing for such two Directors- respondent No.7 and 9 is agreeable for such purpose. On behalf of the original petitioners- appellants herein, they have also prayed that if fresh election is ordered to be held after due publication in the newspaper, their respective clients are agreeable.
4. In our view, if fresh election is held, the principal relief prayed for quashing of process of election so held and declaration for holding of election afresh would be taken care of. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders Mr. Oza and Mr. Antani have declared before us Page 3 of 5 C/LPA/836/2014 JUDGMENT that if such a direction is given for fresh election under the supervision of an officer who may be nominated by this Court, the Government and its officers shall abide by the direction(s) issued by this Court.
5. In view of the aforesaid, when fresh election is to be held, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and there shall be further following directions:
(1) Fresh election of the Board of Directors of Chanasma Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. shall be held by giving 14 days' notice in the newspapers, namely Divya Bhaskar and Gujarat Samachar, which are stated to be having circulation in the area.
(2) Election program shall be prepared and shall be published accordingly.
(3) After draft of election program is prepared, all steps for supervising the election shall be taken by the officer not below the rank of Deputy District Registrar who may be nominated by the District Registrar, Patan.
(4) The aforesaid process for holding election shall be completed within a period of SIX WEEKS from today.
Until the election is held, present body may continue but after the election is held and result is declared, newly elected body shall be permitted to assume the office.
(5) Report of the election duly held shall be submitted to the District Registrar within ONE WEEK from the date of declaration of the result of election. It is further ordered that in order to avoid further dispute, the officer who may be nominated by the District Registrar shall get Page 4 of 5 C/LPA/836/2014 JUDGMENT videography undertaken at the time of scrutiny of nomination form and voting, as the case may be, at the costs of the respondent Bank.
(6) Until fresh election is held and newly elected body takes over the office, no policy decision shall be taken by the present existing body and they shall look after day-to-day affairs of the bank.
6. Both the Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
7. In view of the order passed in the main Letters Patent Appeals, the Civil Applications would not survive and shall stand disposed of accordingly.
Direct Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) Sd/-
(C.L.SONI, J.) Omkar Page 5 of 5