Gujarat High Court
Pandhara Juth Vividh Karyakari Sahkari ... vs The State Of Gujarat on 14 March, 2023
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/4082/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4082 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4084 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4086 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4087 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4089 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4091 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4092 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4093 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4094 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4096 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4097 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4098 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4099 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4100 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4101 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4102 of 2023
================================================================
PANDHARA JUTH VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VC VAGHELA(1720) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MANISHA SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent No. 1
MR DILIP B RANA(691) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Page 1 of 6
Downloaded on : Thu Mar 16 20:38:25 IST 2023
C/SCA/4082/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/03/2023
Date : 14/03/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned Government Pleader and learned advocate Mr.Rana waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. Present writ petitions emanate from the order passed on 22.2.2023 by respondent no.3-authorized officer, whereby names of the petitioners are excluded from the voters' list on the ground that they are not agriculturists.
3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Vaghela appearing for the petitioners has pointed out the provisions of Section 11 of The Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963 (for short, "the APMC Act") and has submitted that there is no provision provided in the entire Act that a non-agriculturist cannot be a member of the committee. It is submitted that the exercise undertaken by respondent no.3-authorized officer is de-hors the provisions of law since all the respective cooperative societies of the present petitioners are the members have never raised the objection. He has submitted that the authorized officer cannot exercise the powers under the APMC Act and hold that the petitioner, being a non-agriculturist, not entitled to vote. Learned advocate, Mr.Vaghela has submitted that since the action of the authorized officer is de-hors the provisions of law and the petitioners, who are members of the petitioner society, are engaged in the activity of production and growth of the agricultural produce within the market area of such committee, they fall within the definition of Section 2 (ii) of the Act. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned action may be set aside.
Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 16 20:38:25 IST 2023C/SCA/4082/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/03/2023
4. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has submitted that entire exercise has been appropriately carried out by the authorized officer since it was found that various market committees were indulged in illegality by making such members for the purpose of facilitating them in the election process and, hence, necessary exercise was undertaken by the authorities and it was found that such members are required to be excluded from the voters' list. Thus, she has submitted that, in fact, Section 11 of the Act contemplates of a Committee, which is to be formed by ten agriculturists and, accordingly, impugned order has been passed removing the petitioners from the list of voters.
5. Learned advocate, Mr.Rana, appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 in Special Civil Application No.4092 of 2023 has tendered affidavit-in-reply. The same is ordered to be taken on record. While referring to the by-laws of the concerned agricultural society, he has submitted that the impugned order passed by the authorized officer is just and proper and does not require interference, since the society has made the members like the present petitioners against the by- laws. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioners are not eligible and cannot be included in the preliminary voters' list and, therefore, objection raised by respondent no.5 was proper. It is submitted that the petitioners, being non-agriculturists, are not entitled to vote and, hence, their exclusion is precisely ordered by the presiding officer.
6. Short issue, which requires deliberation before this Court, is whether the petitioners, who are the members of the Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 16 20:38:25 IST 2023 C/SCA/4082/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/03/2023 respective cooperative societies would fall within the meaning of Section 11 of the APMC Act. Section 11 of the APMC Act reads as under:-
"11. Constitution of Market committee. (1) Every market committee shall consist of the following members, namely:-
(I) ten agriculturists having land as such, whose names are enlisted in the voters' list published by the Election Commission of India for such market area, shall be elected by the members of managing committees of the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area;
(ii) four members to be elected in the prescribed manner from amongst themselves by the commission agents or traders, as the case may be, whose license granted or renewed under section 27 or 27A, who have traded in full conformity with the terms and conditions of the licence in the previous financial year and the fees payable by them has not remained unpaid;
(iii) two representatives of the Co-operative marketing societies situate in the market area, holding general licences, engaged in the business in conformity with their respective objects and have their last accounts audited in class A, B or C, as the case may be, to be elected from amongst the members (other than nominal, associate or sympathiser members) of such societies by the members of the managing committees of such societies.
Provided that where the number of co-operative marketing societies so situate does not exceed two, only one representative shall be so elected;
Provided further that for voting as well as for being elected to represent their respective class under Clauses (i),(ii) and (iii) above, the person shall be eligible as a voter for only one market committee of the State and also eligible to represent the same market committee and no other market committee of the State in the manner as may be prescribed;
(iv) ...................
(v) ....................."
Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 16 20:38:25 IST 2023C/SCA/4082/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/03/2023
7. The case of the petitioners is that the provisions of Section 11 (i) of the APMC Act do not in any manner, debar the members of the primary agricultural credit cooperative societies from casting their vote being an agriculturist or non- agriculturist. A simple and literal meaning of provisions of Section 11 (1) (i) of the APMC Act makes it clear that no distinct class is prescribed neither under the Act nor under the provision that only those members of managing committee of primary agricultural credit cooperative society, who are agriculturists, can only be allowed to vote or elect ten agriculturists constituting a market committee. In the present case, on an objection raised by the private respondents, the authorized officer has deleted names of the present petitioners only for the reason that they are not agriculturists. This Court has also perused the by-laws of the respective agricultural society. A bare perusal of the same would reveal that the by- laws do not in any manner restrict the cooperative society in enrolling the non-agriculturists as its members.
8. If the private respondents had any objection or any objection can be taken under the agricultural cooperative societies of enrolling such members de-hors their by-laws, the appropriate authority would be the Board of Nominees constituted under Section 39 of the Act. Under the circumstances and in light of the aforesaid facts, the authorized officer has acted completely beyond his jurisdiction and de-hors the statutory provisions by deleting the names of present petitioners from the voters' list on the ground that they are non-agriculturists. The procedure adopted by the authorized officer is absolutely averse to law. He has no power Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 16 20:38:25 IST 2023 C/SCA/4082/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/03/2023 to adjudicate whether the member of the society is an agriculturist or not.
9. These writ petitions stand allowed. The impugned order dated 22.2.2023 passed by the authorized officer is hereby set aside. The respondent no.3 is directed to include the names of the present petitioners in the voters' list and the exercise undertaken by him by deleting the names of the petitioners on the ground they being non-agriculturist, is declared as void. Rule is made absolute.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) R.S. MALEK Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 16 20:38:25 IST 2023