Gujarat High Court
Ghanshyambhai Chunibhai Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 31 July, 2017
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
C/SCA/14117/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14117 of 2017
==========================================================
GHANSHYAMBHAI CHUNIBHAI THAKKAR....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CP CHAMPANERI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. VENUGOPAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Date : 31/07/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.07.2017 (Annexure 'A') passed by the respondent No.2 - Authorized Officer rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 20.07.2017 raising objection against the non-inclusion of his name in the voters' list of the Traders' constituency for the election of APMC, Tarapur.
2. At the outset, it is required to be stated that the entire petition lacks clarity and suffers from vagueness. The chronology of events has also not been properly stated, let alone the typographical mistakes contained in the petition. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. However, from the submissions made by Mr. Champaneri, Page 1 of 6 HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Mon Aug 21 06:25:11 IST 2017 C/SCA/14117/2017 ORDER it appears that the petitioner and his brother had entered into a partnership at will on 20.09.1983 by executing a partnership deed in the name and style of M/s Ashirwad Rice and Pulse Mills. Since they wanted to trade in agricultural produce in the area of Khambhat Agriculture Produce Market, they had applied for and got the general licence. In the year 1998-99, Khambhat APMC came to be bifurcated and new notified market committee for Tarapur came to be constituted. Hence, their licence was transferred to APMC Tarapur. It further appears that the petitioner in his individual name had also applied and got the licence from the APMC Tarapur. However, the said licence having been cancelled by the Secretary, APMC on 15.03.2016, the petitioner had preferred the Revision Application being No. 26 of 2016. The respondent No.1 allowed the said Revision Application by the order dated 01.04.2016, whereby the order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the respondent No.3 was set aside. According to the petitioner, the terms of his licence was expiring on 31.03.2016, and therefore, he had made application for renewal of his licence on 05.04.2016. The Tarapur APMC, in his meeting held on 26.05.2016 had renewed the general licence of the petitioner, however, thereafter the Director had initiated the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 27(4) of the Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), for cancellation of his licence. The said action initiated by the Director under Section 27(4) was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Civil Page 2 of 6 HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Mon Aug 21 06:25:11 IST 2017 C/SCA/14117/2017 ORDER Application No. 9530 of 2016, whereby this Court while issuing the notice to the respondents had passed an ex-parte order prohibiting the proceedings initiated pursuant to the communication dated 01.06.2016. The said petition is pending before this Court.
3. It further appears that the licence issued in the individual name of the petitioner came to be cancelled by the APMC Tarapur, as per the decision taken in its meeting held on 05.06.2017, on the ground that the petitioner had made misrepresentation while obtaining the said licence and the petitioner had failed to give any explanation in that regard (Annexure 'G'). According to the petitioner, the said order having been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the said order was challenged by him by filing Special Civil Application No. 13478 of 2017. The Court while issuing the notice in the said petition on 19.07.2017, had granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 7-C, which reads as under : -
"7 C. This Hon'ble Court may pending hearing till final disposal of the petition, kindly be pleased to stay the impugned resolution No.5 passed in the meeting dated 05.06.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to treat the licence No. 189 of the petitioner renewed and at par with the benefits of the petitioner as per provisions of section 11 (1) (ii) of Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1963 with continuous effect."
4. It appears that thereafter on 20.07.2017, the Page 3 of 6 HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Mon Aug 21 06:25:11 IST 2017 C/SCA/14117/2017 ORDER petitioner had made an application to the respondent - Authorized Officer raising objection against non- inclusion of his name in the voters' list of Traders constituency. The said application has been rejected by the authorized officer vide the impugned order on 24.07.2017.
5. It is sought to be submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Champaneri for the petitioner that the Authorized Officer had wrongly rejected the objection raised by the petitioner against non-inclusion of his name in the voters' list on the ground that it was filed after the date fixed in the election programme. According to him, since the Court had passed the order on 19.07.2017 in Special Civil Application No. 13478 of 2017, it was expected of the Authorized Officer to include the name of the petitioner in the voters' list. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of The Godhra Taluka Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. and Another versus State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2009 (3) GLH 380, he submitted that the name of the petitioner was required to be included in the voters' list of Traders Constituency.
6. In the instant case, it appears that the election programme of the APMC, Tarapur was declared on 14.06.2017 as per Rule 10(2) of the APMC Rules, according to which, the preliminary voters' list was to be published on 03.07.2017 under rule 8(1) of the said Rules. Since the licence of the petitioner was already cancelled as per the decision taken by the Page 4 of 6 HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Mon Aug 21 06:25:11 IST 2017 C/SCA/14117/2017 ORDER APMC on 05.06.2017, i.e. even prior to declaration of the election programme, his name was not included by the Authorized Officer in the preliminary voters' list published on 03.07.2017. He therefore had challenged the said decision dated 05.06.2017 of the respondent No.3 - APMC before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 13478 of 2017 in which the Court had passed ex-parte order on 19.07.2017 as stated hereinabove.
7. The petitioner thereafter having made an application on 20.07.2017 raising objection against his non-inclusion, his objection application has been rejected by the Authorized Officer as per the impugned order. Now, it is not disputed that the last date for filing the objection against the preliminary voters' list was 17.07.2017 and the petitioner had filed the objection on 20.07.2017. The Authorized Officer vide the order dated 24.07.2017 rejected the same, on the ground that the said objection was filed after the stipulated date. Since the petitioner was not holding the valid licence, his name was not included in the preliminary voters' list published on 03.07.2017. Hence, it could not be said that the respondent - Authorized Officer had committed any illegality in not including the petitioner's name in the voters' list. Similarly, he having filed objection after the prescribed date, the Authorized Officer had rightly rejected the said objection. Whether the licence of the petitioner was rightly cancelled or not, is the subject matter of the petition being Special Civil Page 5 of 6 HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Mon Aug 21 06:25:11 IST 2017 C/SCA/14117/2017 ORDER Application No. 13478 of 2017, and therefore, the Court without expressing any opinion on the said issue, is of the opinion that the objection application of the petitioner having been filed after the date fixed in the election programme, there was no arbitrariness or illegality committed by the Authorized Officer in rejecting the said objection application.
8. It is needless to say that non inclusion of the name in the voters' list, could not be said to be an extraordinary circumstance warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Full Bench in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited Vs. R. D. Rohit, Authorized Officer and Co-operative Officer (Marketing) reported in 2006 GCD 211 (SCA No.2489 of 2005 dt. 27.4.2005).
9. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed in limine.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.) Amar Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Mon Aug 21 06:25:11 IST 2017