Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Sinor Taluka Ker Utpadako vs Authorized Officer And on 30 April, 2013

Author: Jayant Patel

Bench: Jayant Patel

  
	 
	 SINOR TALUKA KER UTPADAKO NI KHARID VECHAN ANE PROCESSINGV/SAUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CO-OPERATION OFFICER (MARKET)
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 


	C/SCA/7990/2013
	                                                                    
	                           ORDER

 

 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

IN
			THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
		
	

 


SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION  NO. 7990 of 2013
 

================================================================
 


SINOR TALUKA KER UTPADAKO
NI KHARID VECHAN ANE PROCESSING  &  1....Petitioner(s)
 


Versus
 


AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND
CO-OPERATION OFFICER (MARKET)  &  1....Respondent(s)
 

================================================================
 

Appearance:
 

MR
DILIP B RANA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
 

================================================================
 

 


 


	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM:
				
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
			
		
		 
			 
				 

 

				
			
			 
				 

and
			
		
		 
			 
				 

 

				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
			
		
	

 


 

 


Date : 30/04/2013
 


 

 


ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order dated 24.02.2013 passed by the Authorized Officer and it is also prayed to direct the respondent Authorized Officer to accept the application made for replacement or change of their representatives / officer in the society.

We have heard Mr.Rana, learned advocate for the petitioners.

It is undisputed position that the election process is going on. The further action could not be said to be wholly ultra vires to the powers of the authorized officer. Whether the representative of the society are validly changed or not is the aspect which requires further examination. Under these circumstances, we find that when the election process is going on, it would not be the case for interference by this Court. In the event, if the petitioners are aggrieved after the declaration of the result of the election, the petitioners may file appropriate proceedings for challenging the election before the appropriate forum, if permissible under the law.

With these aforesaid observations, the present petition disposed of.

(JAYANT PATEL, J.) (S.G.SHAH, J.) Girish Page 2 of 2