Gujarat High Court
Patel Hardasbhai Danabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 30 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7319 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7341 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7450 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PATEL HARDASBHAI DANABHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARIN RAVAL SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR CP CHAMPANERI(5920)
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VENUGOPAL PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 30/06/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] Since all these petitions having more or less identical facts and law, at the request of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, have been taken up analogously. Considering the urgency, the same are taken up for final hearing and are being Page 1 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined disposed of by this common judgment and order at the admission stage.
[2] Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Venugopal Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents - State authorities.
[3] For the sake of convenience, Special Civil Application No.7319 of 2025 is treated as the lead matter, therefore, facts are recording arising from the said petition.
[4] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court with the following reliefs:
"10 (A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 the present petition; Annexure-A to (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other Page 2 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to declare the order of the respondent no.2 including the respondent no.3 to 11 societies in the voters list of Agriculturists Constituency of the elections of A.P.M.C. Thara, ultra-vires to provisions of sec.
11(1)(i) of the act and rule 5,7 and 8 of the rules;
(C) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 passed by respondent no.2;
(D) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to provisionally exclude the name of members of the managing committee of the respondent no. 3 to 11 societies from the Revised Draft voter's list and subsequently final voters list of Agriculturists constituency for the elections of Thara APMC.
(E) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper."
[5] The case of the petitioner can be stated as under:
[5.1] It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an agriculturist having land and a registered voter at the assembly Page 3 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined elections, of the market area of market committee Thara. The petitioner thus possessing all requisite qualification to contest for the post of member of the Market Committee from the Agriculturists committee, is aspiring to contest the elections. The petitioner therefore is very much interested in just, proper, fair and pure election process of the elections of The Market Committee Thara. The petitioner is also managing committee member of The Arbudanagar (Changa) Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. The said society is a voter at the election and therefore the names of the managing committee of the society is enlisted in the preliminary voters list published by the respondent no.2 wherein the name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No. 3394.
[5.2] It is also the case of the petitioner that the election of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee Thara were to be held on or before 20th June 2024, as the term of the earlier body was to expire on that day. Upon expiration of the term the respondent No.1 was pleased to appoint the Administrator. After appointment of the Administrator, an Administrative Committee was also appointed. Upon order issued by this Court in a writ petition filed Page 4 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined by some of the members of the superseded Committee, the elections of the market committee is declared.
[5.3] Election of the Market Committee was directed to be held as expeditiously as possible on or before 21 st March 2025.
Accordingly, the respondent No.1, in exercise of his powers, has appointed the respondent No.2 as Authorized Officer to conduct the elections. The respondent No.3 accordingly, in exercise of his powers, has issued election program and fixed stages of election, which can be reproduced hereinbelow:
"Agriculture Produce Market Committee- Thara, Taluka- Kankrej, District- Banaskantha General Election Programme Sr. No. Details of Programme Date (1) (2) (3)
1. Declaration of the election- 40 days prior to the 20/03/2025 date of election as per Rule-10(2)
2. The authorized officer to issue notice to prepare 07/04/2025 electoral roll 2(A) Date to submit the electoral roll to the 15/04/2025 authorized officer (Rule-7)
3. Primary publication of the electoral roll, 19/04/2025 within 7 days from the date of seeking the electoral roll (Rule-7(2))
4. Last date to submit objection / application for 02/05/2025 Page 5 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined correction in the primary electoral roll, within 14 days from primary publication (Rule-8(1)) 4(A) Re-publishing revised primary electoral roll 08/05/2025 along with the notice to raise objection for the same, prepared after submission of corrections- instructions-objections against the primary electoral roll (Rule-8(1)(A)) 4(B) Last date to submit corrections/ objections 14/05/2025 against the republished revised primary electoral roll (Rule-8(1)(A))
5. Final publication of the electoral roll (Rule- 20/05/2025 8(2))
6. Date to submit Nomination papers (Rule- 19/06/2025 10(2))
7. Primary publication of Nomination papers 19/06/2025 (Rule-14)
8. Verification of Nomination papers (Rule-15) 20/06/2025
9. Date to withdraw Nomination papers [Rule- 23/06/2025 17(1)]
10. Final publication of list of candidates [Rule- 23/06/2025 17(2)]
11. Date of election 30/06/2025
12. Date of counting votes 01/07/2025
13. Declaration of Election result (Rule-21) Immediately after counting votes Page 6 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Date:20/03/2025 Director Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance Place: Gandhinagar Gujarat State Gandhinagar [5.4] As per the case of the petitioner, that with an intent to create artificial majority in the voters list, powerful political people having influenced with the State machinery and the District Cooperative Banks, new Societies got registered and also those Societies are shown to be dispensing agricultural credit by showing artificial disbursement from the District Cooperative Banks and then, to the members of the Sub-societies. It is further case of the petitioner that such 'Hawala' transactions have been mutated only on the paper to show the so-called agricultural dispensation of such Society. According to the petitioner, therefore, these Societies are non-functional and disbursements are shown on paper disbursement and as such are the ghost Societies. According to the petitioner, the Societies are aimed to be inserted in the voters list just to inflate the list on the eve of the election. According to the petitioner, the Societies were not possessing any of the qualifications, however, only after knowledge of declaration of Election Notification, all such Societies have acted with the aid and Page 7 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined assistance of the competent authority. Thus, the petitioner, having come to know about such illegalities, filed its objections dated 2 nd May 2025 before the competent authority against the inclusion of names of the members of the Managing Committee of the Society.
The sum and substance of the said objections can be culled out as under:
The Societies have never dispensed agricultural credit in past as per the three-tier cooperative agricultural credit dispensation system. The Societies are the ghost societies and only with a view to get inclusion in the voters list, by way of 'Hawala', credit dispensations have been shown on the paper.
The number of members of the Managing Committee of the concerned Societies are not in consonance with the number of members of the Managing Committee shown in their bye-laws and therefore, the Managing Committee is just a paper arrangement and bogus.
Whether the bye-laws of the said Societies are in Page 8 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined consonance with the model bye-laws prepared by the State Government or not. The said aspect was also requested by the petitioner to inquire into.
The members of the Managing Committee appointed by way of Resolution and not by the Election and thereby, the said Managing Committee cannot be said to be legal and the members thereof cannot be included in the voters list. As per the Cooperative Societies Act, every Managing Committee have to mandatorily follow reservation criteria, whereas, in the said Society, no criteria has been followed, thus, the said committee is not legal in terms and thereby, the same cannot be added in the voters list.
[5.5] The Authorized Officer, thereafter, vide its order dated 8th May 2025, passed an order in rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner and confirming the inclusion of the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the Society.
[6] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the Page 9 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined petitioner has approached this Court with the reliefs as stated hereinabove.
[7] I have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Harin Raval assisted by learned advocate Mr. C. P. Champaneri for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Dipan Desai for the respondents -
Societies and learned A.G.P. Mr. Venugopal Patel for the respondents - State authorities.
[8] Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Harin Raval, while assailing the impugned order, has made the following submissions:
[8.1] Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Raval for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the impugned order dated 8th May 2025 is not tenable in the eye of law as the same being dehors the provisions of Section 11(1)(i) of the Act and Rules 7 and 8.
[8.2] Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Raval submitted that the impugned order suffers from the vices of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Raval submitted that while passing the impugned order, the lawyer of the petitioner who was present in the office of the Page 10 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined respondent - authority, with his objections, was not heard. Mr. Raval submitted that though the lawyer of the petitioner was present on the date of hearing, he was not called upon to make his submissions pursuant to the objections so raised. According to Mr. Raval, therefore, the impugned order is against the settled principles of natural justice and thereby, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
[8.3] Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Raval, relying upon the provisions of Section 11(1)(i) of the Act, submitted that the Societies those are included in the voters list actually are not dispensing agricultural credit following three-tier system. Mr. Raval vehemently submitted that out of total 32 Societies, many Societies have not transacted in dispensation of agricultural credit in past, but only on the eve of election, the Societies, in connivance with the Bank authorities, have got disbursed the agricultural credit by only with a view to acquire the qualification for inclusion of names in the voters list. Mr. Raval, relying upon the provisions of Section 11(1)(i) of the Act, submitted that dispensation of agricultural credit in a market area is the sole qualification for inclusion of Page 11 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined name in the voters list. According to Mr. Raval, thereby, the Society has to have past transactions record showing actual dispensation of agricultural credit. According to Mr. Raval, dispensation of agricultural credit, is a retroactivity and shall not be meant for singular transaction, that too at the eve of election. Mr. Raval, therefore, submitted that inclusion of those Societies, who disbursed the agricultural credit not in the past, but only in the eve of election, cannot be said to be qualified and thereby, the same deserves to be excluded by quashing and setting aside the impugned order.
[8.4] Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Raval further submitted that as per Section 11(1)(i) of the Act, the element of dispensation of agricultural credit by the Cooperative Society is mandatory and thereby, the Societies, those are dispensing agricultural credit in the market area, shall have to follow three-tier system for dispensation of agricultural credit. According to Mr. Raval, dispensation of agricultural credit from the private fund of the Society cannot be said to be actual dispensation of agricultural credit. According to Mr. Raval, as per the cooperative structure, it is Page 12 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined the most preferred and safest way to adopt three-tier system for dispensation of agricultural credit. Mr. Raval, accordingly, submitted that out of total 32 Societies, many Societies have dispensed the agricultural credit from its private fund and thereby, the same cannot be said to be qualified in view of Section 11(1)(i) of the A.P.M.C. Act. Mr. Raval, therefore, submitted that the said Societies are thereby not qualified to be included in the voters list as not being qualified, thus, deserves to be excluded by quashing and setting aside the impugned order.
[8.5] Mr. Raval next submitted that all the Societies became proactive only after the knowledge of the election and thereby, any proactive steps taken at the eve of election for the purpose of inclusion of its name in the voters list are nothing, but an attempt to hamper and / or tamper the democratic system in the matter of election of the A.P.M.C. According to Mr. Raval, therefore, any exaggeration and / or overstepping for the purpose of inclusion of name in the voters list in the eve of election deserves to be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under its extraordinary jurisdiction treating the same being Page 13 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined special and / or extraordinary circumstances.
[9] By making above submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Raval for the petitioner requested this Court to quash and set aside the impugned order by directing the exclusion of name of the Society.
[10] Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Dipan Desai for the respondents - Societies, while supporting the impugned order, has made the following submissions:
[10.1] Learned advocate Mr. Desai for the respondents vehemently submitted that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, having complex disputed questions of facts with regard to fraud and 'Hawala', may not be entertained by this Court as the same deserves leading of evidence. Mr. Desai further submitted that Rule 28 is the alternative efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioner and the same can be availed by the petitioner once the election is concluded. Mr. Desai, therefore, requested this Court to dismiss the present petition on the ground of availability of alternative efficacious statutory Page 14 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined remedy by way of Election Petition under Rule 28.
[10.2] Learned advocate Mr. Desai for the respondents submitted that the Authorized Officer, after having scrutinized the basic details of the respondents - Societies, included their names in the voters list. Mr. Desai further submitted that even in the impugned order, the findings recorded by the Authorized Officer that the respondents - Societies are qualifying as per the provisions of Section 11(1)(i) of the Act considering the fact that the Societies are actually dispensing agricultural credit by private fund as well as three-tier system. The Authorized Officer further held that the members of the Managing Committee are as per the bye-laws and also found that there is no 'Hawala' involved. According to Mr. Desai, the order passed by the Authorized Officer is perfectly justified and based on the inquiry undertaken and documents on record. Thus, Mr. Desai submitted that the impugned order passed by the Authorized Officer may not be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
[10.3] Learned advocate Mr. Desai for the respondents Page 15 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined next submitted, relying upon Section 11(1)(i) of the A.P.M.C. Act that the only criteria to become qualified for inclusion of name in the voters list is that the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Societies should be dispensing agricultural credit in the market area. Mr. Desai vehemently submitted that in the said provisions, the legislature has not provided any qualifying criteria with regard to "dispensing agricultural credit". Mr. Desai further submitted that by way of amendment, the legislature has amended the provisions of Section 11(1)(ii) and (iii) of the A.P.M.C. Act with regard to qualifying criteria for the traders' constituency and cooperative market societies by adding certain criteria to become qualified for inclusion of name in the voters list. However, the legislature has not amended any criteria with regard to provisions of Section 11(1)
(i). According to Mr. Desai, therefore, dispensation of agricultural credit, thereby, cannot be meant to be only if it is done by following three-tier system. Mr. Desai submitted that if the bye-
laws of the Society permit other mode of dispensation for example by way of private fund, the said activity also falls within the ambit of "dispensing agricultural credit". Mr. Desai, therefore, submitted Page 16 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined that if the contention of the petitioner is accepted with regard to agricultural credit dispensation activity should be retroactive and through three-tier system, then it would be amounting to rewriting of legislation, which cannot be permitted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, Mr. Desai submitted that the impugned order passed by the Authorized Officer holding the respondents - Societies that compliance of qualifying, the words "dispensing agricultural credit" are justified and thereby, the impugned order does not require to be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
[10.4] Learned advocate Mr. Desai submitted that present petition is filed with a bald allegation that the District Cooperative Banks were influenced by the local politician with a view to see that agricultural credit be disbursed by the Societies without joining the Banks and / or any other party in the present petition. Mr. Desai further submitted that dispensing agricultural credit and becoming qualified to be a voter in the eve of election is nothing, but an attempt to make a show that the election is sought to be hampered. Mr. Desai submitted that it is not the case that Page 17 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined outgoing Managing Committee, with a view to inflate the votes, in the eve of election, has attempted to include the Societies as voters.
Admittedly, since one year, there is no Managing Committee and the Society was managed by the Administrator and therefore, it cannot be said that any outgoing Managing Committee has misused their powers in the eve of election and accordingly, the same cannot be said to be special and / or extraordinary circumstances and thus, the same does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
[10.5] Learned advocate Mr. Desai further pointed out that an independent agency like the District Cooperative Bank has issued loans to the members of the Societies and thereby, it cannot be said that the same was not within the domain of the outgoing Managing Body, who has attempted to inflate the voters list.
[11] By making above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Desai for the respondents requested this Court to dismiss the present petition.
[12] Learned A.G.P. Mr. Venugopal Patel for the respondents Page 18 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
- State authorities, while supporting the impugned order, has made the following submissions:
[12.1] While adopting all the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respondents - Societies, learned A.G.P. Mr. Venugopal Patel submitted that under the provisions of Rules, it was within the power of the Authorized Officer to hold an inquiry with regard to verifying the details of the voters those are sought to be included in the voters list. In view of such power, the Authorized Officer has held necessary inquiry as deemed fit by it and found that the respondents - Societies are qualified to be included in the voters list and thereby, the impugned order passed, after holding such inquiry, cannot be faulted with.
[12.2] Learned A.G.P. Mr. Venugopal further submitted that by way of impugned order, objections raised by the petitioner are dealt with by specific reasons and therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal and / or suffering from vices of no reason. Mr. Venugopal further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Authorized Officer has strictly followed the Page 19 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined principles of natural justice. He further submitted relying upon the Rojkam that the authorized lawyer of the objector - the petitioner herein has also put up his signature and thereby, at this stage, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed without hearing the objector - petitioner. According to Mr. Venugopal, the allegation leveled against the officer is that the lawyer was never called up to make any submission towards the objections, was absolutely incorrect and is nothing, but a bald allegation with a view to win the sympathy of the Court and to establish that the authority has acted highhandedly. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the signature on the Rojkam is not disputed by the petitioner and thus, in the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court may not entertain the present petition on such highly disputed questions of facts. According to Mr. Venugopal, even otherwise, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious statutory remedy before the Election Tribunal, as envisaged under Rule 28, by which it will be open for the petitioner to raise all the contentions. Mr. Venugopal, therefore, requested this Court not to entertain the present petition being involved highly disputed Page 20 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined questions of facts.
[13] By making above submissions, learned A.G.P. Mr. Venugopal Patel for the respondents - State authorities requested this Court to dismiss the present petition.
[14] At the time of hearing of the present petitions, various decisions concerning the issue with regard to election came to be relied upon by all the parties and the same are hereby stated as under:
(i) Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2017(0) AIR(CC) 117;
(ii) Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2017(2) GLR 902;
(iii) Chandrakant Manibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in [2013(3) GLH 778];Page 21 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
(iv) Dolat Prabhubhai Dumaniya vs. Director -
Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance reported in 2013(2) GLH 157;
(v) Chanchpur Arthsam Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2023(4) GLR 2597;
(vi) Kankapura Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat [R/Special Civil Application No.17579 of 2024 and allied petitions decided on 31st January 2025];
(vii) Kalubhai Ishrabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2016(2) GLR 1147;
(viii) Narendrasinh Rupsinh Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2021(0) GUJHC 33729;
(ix) Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited vs. R. D. Rohit, Authorized Officer and Cooperative Officer (Marketing) reported in 2006 (1) GCD 211;
Page 22 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
(x) Juna Jampura Kala Kapas Utpadak Ane Rupantar Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat [R/Special Civil Application No.6685 of 2025 and allied petitions decided on 20th June 2025].
[15] I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length and have gone through the material produced on record. No other and further submissions have been canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, except what are stated hereinabove.
[16] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material produced on record, the following questions those falls for consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the words used "dispensing agricultural credit in the market area" in Section 11(1)(i) of the A.P.M.C. Act can be construed to mean that such dispensation of agricultural credit shall be retroactive in nature and shall have to be by following three-tier cooperative Page 23 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined structure only and not by private fund?
(ii) Whether, in the facts of the present case, Societies, who dispensed agricultural credit for the first time, near the date of declaration of election, can be said to be disqualified in view of the provisions of Section 11(1)
(i) of the A.P.M.C. Act, because in the past, no dispensation of agricultural credit was made by the Societies?
(iii) Whether, in the facts of the present case, inclusion of name in the voters list can be said to be an attempt to inflate the voters list and thus, falls within the category of special and / or extraordinary circumstances, which calls for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instead of relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative efficacious statutory remedy under Rule 28?
[17] So as to decide the aforesaid questions, it would be at profit to take note of various authorities cited by the learned Page 24 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined advocates appearing for the respective parties so as to have clarity with regard to settled proposition of law.
[18] The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2017(0) AIR(CC) 117, observed thus as under:
"22. The main thrust of the arguments made by the learned Sr. Counsel Mr.Joshi is that the Authorized Officer had travelled beyond the scope of inquiry as contemplated in Rule 8 and had not implemented the directions of the order dated 9.12.2015 passed by this Court in the true letter and spirit, inasmuch as the impugned orders though passed separately, contained the same reasons for deleting the names of the members of the Managing Committees of the petitioner Societies. In the opinion of the Court, though the said submissions apparently sound impressive, have hardly any substance in view of the recent amendment made in Section 11(1)(i) of the APMC Act. It transpires from the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.4 that the first and foremost objection raised by the respondent No.5 before the respondent No.4 was that none of the petitioner Societies were the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies within the meaning of the amended Section 11(1)(i) of the APMC Act and had not followed the procedure and norms of three-tier Cooperative Credit Structure while dispensing agricultural credits. Now, as per the said amendment, which has come into force w.e.f. 10.4.2015, the words "Cooperative Societies (other than Cooperative Marketing Societies and Milk Produce Cooperative Societies)" have been substituted by the words the "Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies" in Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section Page 25 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
11. Hence, when the fresh election programme was declared by the respondent No.2 Director, the said amendment had already come into force, which required that the eight members from agriculturists constituency of the said Committee shall be elected by the members of the Managing Committee of the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies, dispensing agricultural credit in the market area. Therefore, for the purposes of Section 11(1)(i), the Societies have to be Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies. Of course, the term 'Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies' has not been defined either under the APMC Act or under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. However, it appears that by the Amendment Act 1 of 2008, which came into force w.e.f. 8.10.2007, certain provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act were amended, and the provisions with regard to the Cooperative Credit Structure were incorporated therein. The Cooperative Credit Structure is defined in Section 2(7-A) of the said Societies Act as under:-
"Section 2(7A). "Cooperative Credit Structure"
means
(i) the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies;
(ii) the Central Cooperative Banks; and
(iii) the State Cooperative Bank;"
23. The said Societies Act was also amended by incorporating certain provisions for the Societies, which fall under the Cooperative Credit Structure, more particularly in respect of borrowings, investments, loans, etc. It is not disputed that the petitioner Societies being cooperative societies registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, are governed by the provisions of the said Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. A bird's eye-view of the provisions of the said Societies Act would reveal that Section 6 of the said Act lays Page 26 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined down conditions of registration, and Sub-section (1-A) thereof provides that in case of the society in cooperative credit structure registered under Sub-section (1), the society shall have power to decide their respective area of operation without any restrictions. Section 12 of the said Act states that the Registrar may classify all the Societies in such manner, and into such classes as he thinks fit; and the classification of a society under any head of classification by the Registrar shall be final. Section 44A lays down the powers of the committee of the Society in the cooperative credit structure. Section 45(3) puts restrictions on the eligibility of persons to borrow from or make deposit in a Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies. Certain privileges and exemptions have also been granted to the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies falling in Cooperative Credit Structure, as contained in Chapters VI and VII pertaining to the property, funds and management of Societies.
24. Now, coming back to the provisions contained in Section 11(1)(i) of the APMC Act, it appears that after the amendment in the said provision, the eligibility criteria of Cooperative Societies to participate in the election of Agriculturist Constituency has been confined to the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies only. Therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner Societies to fall within the category of Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies dispensing agricultural credit, for being eligible to vote in the election of members for the agriculturist constituency of the Market Committee. The objector i.e. respondent No.5 had categorically raised the objections against all the petitioner Societies that they were not the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies, dispensing agricultural credit as per the amended provisions of Section 11(1)(i) of the APMC Act and that the credit transactions shown in the books of accounts were not genuine and not as per the three-tier Cooperative Credit Structure. Though the petitioner Societies had submitted their respective replies giving details of the agricultural credit dispensed by them, they had significantly remained silent as to whether they were the Societies classified as the Primary Agricultural Credit Page 27 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Cooperative Societies within the Cooperative Credit Structure under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act or not. No such averments have been made by the petitioners in the present petitions also.
* * *
27. Be that as it may, though the Court finds that the impugned orders could have been passed in a better manner by the respondent No.4 dealing with the material produced by the petitioner Societies individually, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the same as all the petitioners had failed to satisfy the respondent No.4 that they were the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies and had followed the requirements of the three-tier Cooperative Credit Structure while dispensing agricultural credit. The submission of the learned Advocates for the petitioners that the petitioners were not required to follow the provisions contained in the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act pertaining to the Cooperative Credit Structure, has no legs to stand. As discussed herein above, the Societies falling under the Cooperative Credit Structure as defined under Section 2(7- A) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, enjoy certain privileges and exemptions under the said Act, and at the same time they have been put to certain restrictions also in the matter of investments, borrowings and loans. If, according to the petitioners, they were the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies, falling in Cooperative Credit Structure, they had to follow the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, Rules and Bye-laws applicable to them."
[18.1] In the aforesaid case, the facts were that the petitioner - Society has challenged the order of the Authorized Officer deleting the names of the members of the Managing Committee from the voters list of the agriculturists constituency Page 28 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined mainly on the ground that the Authorized Officer acted beyond his power and jurisdiction as he could not have inquire into the legality or genuineness of the loan transactions entered into by the petitioner - Society with the members holding, inter alia, that those Societies were not dispensing agricultural credit. In the said case, the main argument of the petitioner was that the Authorized Officer, under Rule 8, has a very limited scope of inquiry while deciding the objections and in such limited inquiry, genuineness of loan cannot be gone into. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited vs. R. D. Rohit, Authorized Officer and Cooperative Officer (Marketing) (2006 GCD-1-21) (Civil Application No.2489 of 2005 and another dated 27 th April 2005), not accepted the said contention about limited power of inquiry. Further, considering Section 11(1)(i) of the A.P.M.C. Act, the Coordinate Bench observed that the eligibility criteria of Cooperative Societies to participate in the election of Agriculturist Constituency has been confined to the Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies only and therefore, it was incumbent on the Page 29 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined part of the petitioner - Society to fall within the category of Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies dispensing agricultural credit to its members in the Market Committee area.
Importantly, the Coordinate Bench has clarified that to participate in the Election of the Agriculturists Constituency, Society has to be within the category of "Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies".
[18.2] In the present case, undisputably, the respondents
- Societies are Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies and thereby, in conformity with the provisions of Section 2(7-A) of the of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.
[18.3] The aforesaid decision has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2017(2) GLR 902. While upholding the decision of the learned Single, the Division Bench has held thus as under:
"11. From reading of the provision under Section 11 (1)(i) of Page 30 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined the Act read with Rule 8 of the Rules, it is also clear that as per the provision under Section 11(1)(i) of the Act, only members of the managing committee of primary agricultural credit cooperative society dispensing agricultural credit in market area alone are eligible for inclusion for holding elections to the agriculturist constituency of the market committee. Further from the reading of Rule 8 of the Rules, it is also clear that when objections are filed under Rule 8(1) of the Rules, it is always open for the authorized officer to hold an inquiry that whether such proposed members of the managing committee are the members of primary agricultural credit cooperative society or not and whether such primary agricultural credit cooperative society is involved in dispensing of agricultural credit in the market area or not. The authorized officer may not conduct in- depth enquiry elaborately, but so as to consider that such nominated members of the particular agricultural society fit into the electorate as contemplated under Section 11(1)(i) of the Act, can make summary inquiry into it. There cannot be any straitjacket formula on the scope of inquiry under Rule 8(2) of the Act with reference to eligibility of the electorate under Section 11(1)(i) of the Act, but it is a matter to be decided by the election officer having regard to the facts of each case. When it is an objection of the objector that the appellant society is not dispensing agricultural credit in the market area, limited inquiry is always permissible by authorized officer under Rule 8(2) of the Rules to that limited extent. Further when electrotate under Section 11 (1)(i) of the Act are members of the primary agricultural credit cooperative society dispensing agricultural credit in the market area, it is also open for the authorized officer to examine whether such societies are primary agricultural credit cooperative societies or not which are involved in dispensation of agricultural credit in the market area. While we are in agreement with the view taken by the earlier Division Bench on the restricted scope of inquiry in the case of Shrutbandhu Himatlal Popat (supra), we hold that such finding in the inquiry is to be recorded on the basis of the material placed before the authorized officer having regard to the facts of each case. Such order which is passed by considering Page 31 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined the material placed before the authorized officer, cannot be said to be an order passed without jurisdiction or extraordinary circumstances as held by Full Bench of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra), so as to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the remedy available under Rule 28 of the Rules. Further, in the judgment in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugha Utpadak Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 509, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that breach of or non-compliance of mandatory provisions with rules during the preparation of electorate roll can be challenged in an election petition under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. In the aforesaid decision, it is held that where election process has started, dispute has to be agitated by way of election petition only. It is further held that preparation of voters list is a part of election process for constituting a managing committee of the specified society and such dispute can be resolved by way of election petition. In recent judgment, while considering the validity of rejection of nomination paper under Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952 and Dentists Act, 1948 in the case of Shaji K. Joseph v.
V.Viswanath & Ors, reported in 2016 (0) AIJ-SC 57978, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election by seeking resolution of dispute as per the regulations.
12. In view of the aforesaid judgments, we are of the view that the petition filed by the appellant is rightly held to be not maintainable by the learned single Judge in view of the that effective alternative remedy available under Rule 28 of the Rules."
* * *
14. It is also pleaded by learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi that the learned single Judge has also recorded a finding that the appellant is not primary agricultural credit cooperative Page 32 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined society, but it was not a ground for exclusion of the names of the members of the managing committee of the appellant society and the learned single Judge thereby dismissed the Special Civil Application. It is clear from Section 11(1)(i) of the Act that members of the managing committee of only primary agricultural credit cooperative societies doing credit business in the market area alone are eligible to vote. The learned single Judge has recorded such finding. But from the reasons stated in the order impugned in the Special Civil Application as we are of the view that the order impugned in the Special Civil Application itself can be the subject-matter of election petition, such finding of the leaned single Judge will have no consequence at all."
[18.4] The Division Bench of this Court, in the aforesaid decision, made it clear that as per Section 11(1)(i) of the A.P.M.C. Act, only members of the Managing Committee of Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area alone are eligible for inclusion for holding elections to the agriculturist constituency of the market committee.
[19] In the case of Chandrakant Manibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in [2013(3) GLH 778], the facts were that the licenses were granted to the petitioners therein on 1st May 2013, whereas the election published by the Director in exercise of power under Rule 4 of the Rules on 3rd May 2013 and hence, just two days Page 33 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined prior to the publication of various stage of election, office bearers of the Market Committee granted new licenses for the first time to about 1343 persons as against the renewal of licenses of 315 persons. The peculiar fact in the said case was that on the eve of the election, just two days prior to the publication of the election, the voters list sought to be inflated by issuing fresh licenses by the outgoing Body and in that context, the Division Bench of this Court in the said case has held thus as under:
"12. Before we examine the contention, we may refer to certain legal position. This Court, in the case of Dolatbhai Prabhubhai Dumaniya Vs. Director, Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance, decided on 13.3.2013, reported in 2013 (0) GLHEL- HC, 229249, had an occasion to consider the maintenance of sanctity of the election and the maintenance of the principles for free and fair election. It was observed by the Court at paragraphs 13 to 17 as under:-
13. The aforesaid shows that as per the above referred conclusion of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari (supra), to be eligible for inclusion of the name in the voters' list for elections to Agricultural Produce Market Committees, if a society, it should have obtained the registration on the date of declaration of the election. If a person holding general licence for traders, he must have licence on the date of declaration of the election and if a co-operative marketing society, the society should have obtained registration and should have obtained general licence of the market committee on the date of declaration of the election.Page 34 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
14. Therefore, we will have to examine as to which will be the date to be treated as the declaration of the election and incidentally the question also will have to be examined about the sanctity to be maintained of the election so as to uphold the democratic principles in a free and fair manner.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners did contend that once a declaration is made by the Director by fixation of various dates of election and he has passed an order under Rule 4 of the Rules for such purpose, such will be the date to be termed as the declaration of the elections. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the correct date will be the date for beginning of various stages under Rule 10(1), which in the present case is 21.01.2013 and it cannot be said to have commenced from 09.01.2013 when the Director exercised powers under Rule 4 for fixation of various stages of the election.
16. As observed in the case of Patan Proper Fal and Shak Bhaji Kharid Vechan Sahakari Mandli Ltd. (supra), the process of election can be said to have commenced from the date on which the Director has exercised powers under Rule 4 of the Rules and all stages of elections are so conjoint with the manner and mode of holding of the election, it is not possible for us to find that the process of election cannot be said to have commenced after exercise of powers under Rule 4 of the Rules. There are three reasons for which we are inclined to take the aforesaid view. The first is that Part III of the Rules under the Head Election of Market Committee begins with Rule 4 providing for the power with Director to pass the order in writing for fixation of the dates of the election and for publication of such order passed by him by affixing the copy in market committee as well as at the conspicuous place in the principal market yard. Therefore, it appears Page 35 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined that the intention of the legislature to begin with the process of commencement of election is from the stage of Rule 4. The second reason is that all stages, including that of Rules 7 and 10, would be only after the power is exercised under Rule 4 by the Director. Therefore, in absence of any exercise of powers under Rule 4, it cannot be said that the process of election has commenced or that the subsequent stages of the elections, including that of Rules 7 and 10 would accrue. The third reason is that when the Court is to interpret any provisions of statute, it would make a purposive interpretation so as to maintain the sanctity of election. If the interpretation is made that the process of election has not commenced after exercise of powers by the Director under Rule 4, such would leave room for a large number of manipulations to be made at the ensuing election of any market committee. After the declaration of the election programme by exercise of powers by the Director under Rule 4, one can easily tinker with the sanctity of election. e.g. In the case of the Agriculturists' Constituency where the co-operative societies dispensing agricultural credit and their representatives are the voters, new societies can be formed so as to create an artificial majority or minority as may be convenient to the ruling party. If certain societies are created and the show is made as that of functioning by such societies by dispensing agricultural credit, those societies would get themselves included in the voters' list and consequently, a situation may be created which would materially affect the representation to be made from such voters' constituency of agriculturists. Similarly, even in the case of Traders' Constituency, if after publication of the election programme by exercise of powers by the Director under Rule 4, new licences may be issued by the members of the market committee, who are in power so as to create an artificial majority at the ensuing election and a situation may be created which would materially affect the representation to be made from such voters' constituency of Traders. In the same Page 36 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined manner, in the case of co-operative societies' constituency, new societies may be formed and or the market committee may issue licences so as to make eligible such societies to be included in the voters' list even after the election is declared.
17. The aforesaid are only some of the examples of tinkering with the sanctity of election, but there could be number of instances of such types. It is hardly required to be stated that once the election programme is published, the sanctity of the election process must be maintained by all concerned. Any attempt to tinker with the sanctity of the election would adversely affect the maintenance of the democratic principles to be observed in a free and fair manner for holding of the election. Once an election programme is published by fixing various stages of election, it would be known to all concerned that the process of election has already commenced and they should not enter into any act which may result into adversely affecting the process of the election and the smooth course of holding election by maintenance of the democratic principles.
13. The aforesaid shows that when any election is being held, it should be in a free and fair manner and none should be allowed to tinker with the sanctity of election in a manner, which may either result into artificial majority or otherwise, consequently, affecting the democratic principles to be observed in a free and fair manner for holding of election. Be it noted that it is not a matter of holding election of any private body or a self-created institution by way of an organization of persons or otherwise, but is a matter in the present case for holding of election of a market committee, which is a statutory body as per the provisions of the Act and further as per Section 10(2) of the Act, the Market Committee is deemed to be a local authority within the meaning of Bombay General Clauses Act. Such would mean that the Market Committee is not only a statutory authority, but is given status as that of the local authority and Page 37 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined its functioning can be equated with a local self-government for the purpose of regulating the sales and purchase of the agricultural produce in a market area, subject to the power and control of the Act read with the Rules. It is true that in the case of Dolatbhai Prabhubhai Dumaniya Vs. Director, Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance (supra), this Court had taken the view that if the eligibility is acquired by any voter after the exercise of the power by the Director under Rule 4, the authorized officer would have no jurisdiction or competence to include the names in the voters list and, therefore, the action was found to be without jurisdiction and competence and consequently, such action was struck down and the voters, who were so included, were prohibited from participating at the election.
* * *
15. The aforesaid provision shows that when the State Government exercise the power under Section 48, the decision or the order passed by the Director or the Market Committee can be tested on the ground of legality or on the ground of propriety. Such would mean that the intension of Legislature is to ensure that the principles of propriety for exercise of power or for taking decision are required to be observed by the Market Committee or the Director. Such exercise of power may include the grant of licences, and also at the time when the election is just to commence or on the eve of the election or the propriety to be observed for maintenance of the sanctity of the election or for keeping the election held in a free and fair manner.
16. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider and interpret the words legality and propriety while examining the exercise of power by the Labour Court, in the case of Babulal Nagar and Ors. Vs. Shree Synthetics Limited and Ors., reported in 1984 (suppl.) SCC, 128, and it was observed at paragraph 14 as under:-
14. Having noticed the relevant provisions, it is now Page 38 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined necessary to ascertain with precision the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Sec. 61. The scheme of the standing orders applicable to the respondent Company would show that a penalty of dismissal or removal from service can be imposed after holding a domestic enquiry According to the relevant provisions in the standing orders, such an order when made would be open to challenge by a substantive application under Sec. 66 (1) and in such an application if and when made, the Labour Court will have jurisdiction to decide the legality and the propriety of the order. When jurisdiction is conferred union the Labour Court, not only to examine the legality of the order as also the propriety of the order, the Labour Court can in exercise of the jurisdiction examine the propriety or impropriety of the order. The expression 'propriety' is variously understood, meaning assigned to it being 'justice' in Legal Thesaurus by Burton at page 902.
Amongst various shades of meaning assigned to the expression, the oxford English Dictionary, Vol. VIII page 1484 sets out 'fitness; appropriateness; aptitude; suitability; appropriateness the circumstances or conditions, conformity with requirement; rule or principle, rightness, correctness, justness etc.' If therefore, the justice or the justness in relation to a legal proceeding where evidence is led is questioned and the authority is conferred with jurisdiction to examine the propriety of the order or decision that authority will have the same jurisdiction as the original authority to come to a different conclusion on the same set of facts. If any other view is taken the expression 'propriety' would lose all significance. The expression 'legality and propriety' has been used in various statutes where appellate or revision jurisdiction is conferred upon a superior authority. In Raman & Raman Ltd. v. The State of Madras & Anr. While examining the ambit of the jurisdiction of the State Government under Sec. 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Madras) Amendment Act, 1948 to interfere with the orders of Page 39 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined subordinate Regional Transport Authority on the ground of propriety, this Court observed as under:
"The word "propriety" has nowhere been defined in the Act and is capable of a variety of meanings. In the 782 Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. VIII), it has been stated to mean "fitness; appropriateness; aptitude; suitability; appropriateness to the circumstances or conditions; conformity with requirement, rule or principle; rightness, correctness, justness, accuracy". If the State Government was of the opinion that respondent No. I had better facilities for operation than the appellant and their service to the public would be more beneficial, lt could not be said that the State Government was in error in thinking that the order of the Board confirming the order of the Regional Trans port Authority was improper."
In Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan & Ors. while examining the scope and ambit of jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec. 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, this Court observed as under:
"Under Sec. 15 (5) the High Court has jurisdiction to examine the legality or propriety of the order under revision and that would clearly justify the examination of the propriety or legality of the finding made by the authorities in the present case about the requirement of the landlord under s. 13 (3) (a) (iii). After referring to these two decisions, in Ching Chong Sine v. Puttay Gowder, Alagiriswami, J. held that tho court exercising revisional jurisdiction to decide the legality or propriety of an order has the power to come to a conclusion different from that arrived by the subordinate court on the same set of circumstances. In Ahmedabad Sarangpur Mills Company Ltd v. Industrial Court, Ahmedabad and Anr., a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that the Page 40 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined expression 'legality and propriety' in S. 78(1) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act does not limit the jurisdiction of the labour court to a revisional jurisdiction. And that any order made by the employer under the standing order is subject to the jurisdiction conferred on the labour court under Sec. 78, which can scrutinise the legality and propriety of the order. This jurisdiction was described by the court as original jurisdiction meaning thereby that the labour 783court can come to an entirely different conclusion on the same set of facts. This view was followed by another Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Manekchown and Ahmedabad Manufacturing Company Ltd v. Industrial Court, and another. In Vithoba Maruti Chavan v. S. Taki Bilgrami, Member Industrial Court, Bombay and Anr., a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the power to decide 'propriety' and legality of the order made under standing order does not confer a mere revisional jurisdiction but a wider jurisdiction which will enable the Labour Court to set aside the order of the employer depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
17. The aforesaid shows that when the propriety is to be examined, on the same facts, a different conclusion can be recorded. Further, the word propriety means fitness, appropriateness, aptitude, suitability, appropriateness to the circumstance or condition. Such can also be equated with rightness, correctness, justness or accuracy of decision. The example given is that if the State Government was of the opinion that the respondent no.2 had better facilities for operation than the appellant and their services to the public would be more beneficial, it could not be said that the State Government was in error in thinking that the order of the Board confirming the order of the Regional Transport Authority was improper. There cannot be any straight-jacket formula or manner of exercise of power, but what is improper would directly tinker with the maintenance of the propriety. When any person is clothed with the statutory power or any body is Page 41 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined clothed with statutory power, it is obligatory on the part of such authority to ensure that the basic principles of fairness are required to be observed. In a matter of holding of election, the basic principles of maintenance of the sanctity of the election and holding of the election in a free and fair atmosphere is required to be observed. At this stage, we may refer to the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Anr. Vs. Hon ble Mr. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) and Ors., reported in 2013(3) GLH, 89, wherein at paragraph 34, it was observed by the Apex Court while examining the question of bias a under:-
34. Bias can be defined as the total absence of any pre-
conceived notions in the mind of the Authority/Judge, and in the absence of such a situation, it is impossible to except a fair deal/trial and no one would therefore, see any point in holding/participating in one, as it would serve no purpose. The Judge/Authority must be able to think dispassionately, and sub-merge any private feelings with respect to each aspect of the case. The apprehension of bias must be reasonable, i.e. which a reasonable person would be likely to entertain. Bias is one of the limbs of natural justice. The doctrine of bias emerges from the legal maxim nemo debet esse judex in causa propria sua. It applies only when the interest attributed to an individual is such, so as to tempt him to make a decision in favour of, or to further, his own cause. There may not be a case of actual bias, or an apprehension to the effect that the matter most certainly will not be decided, or dealt with impartially, but where the circumstances are such, so as to create a reasonable apprehension in the minds of others, that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision, the same is sufficient to invoke the doctrine of bias. In the event that actual proof of prejudice is available, the same will naturally make the case of a party much stronger, but the availability of such proof is not a necessary pre-condition, for what is relevant, is actually the reasonableness of the apprehension in this Page 42 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined regard, in the mind of such party. In case such apprehension exists, the trial/judgment/order etc., would stand vitiated, for want of impartiality, and such judgment/order becomes a nullity. The trial becomes coram non judice .While deciding upon such an issue, the Court must examine the facts and circumstances of the case, and examine the matter from the view point of the people at large. The question as regards, whether or not a real likelihood of bias exists, must be determined on the basis of probabilities that are inferred from the circumstances of the case, by the Court objectively, or, upon the basis of the impression that may reasonably be left upon the minds of those aggrieved, or the public at large.
18. The aforesaid shows that the bias can be gathered when the interest attributed to an individual is such, so as to tempt him to make a decision in favour of or to further his own cause. There may not be a case for actual bias, or an apprehension to the effect that the matter most certainly will not be decided, or dealt with impartially, but where the circumstances are such, so as to create a reasonable apprehension in the minds of others, that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision, the same is sufficient to invoke the doctrine of bias. Further, as observed by the Apex Court, whether or not a real likelihood of bias exists, must be determined on the basis of probabilities that are inferred from the circumstances of the case, by the Court objectively, or, upon the basis of the impression that may reasonably be left upon the minds of those aggrieved, or the public at large. In the case of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel Vs. Anilbhai Jayanitbhai Patel, reported in 2006(3) GLH, 226, the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the aspect of exercise of power by the Court to intervene with the decision making process. At paragraph 18, it was observed, thus:-
18. Having regard to it all, it is manifest that the power of judicial review may not be exercised unless the administrative decision is illogical or suffers from Page 43 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined procedural impropriety or it shocks the conscience of the court in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards but no standardised formula, universally applicable to all cases, can be evolved. Each case has to be considered on its own facts, depending upon the authority that exercises the power, the source, the nature or scope of power and the indelible effects it generates in the operation of law or affects the individual or society.
Though judicial restraint, albeit self-recognised, is the order of the day, yet an administrative decision or action which is based on wholly irrelevant considerations or material; or excludes from consideration the relevant material; or it is so absurd that no reasonable person could have arrived at it on the given material, may be struck down. In other words, when a Court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power, and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the Court to intervene. It is nevertheless, trite that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision.
19. The aforesaid shows that when it shocks the conscience of the Court in the sense that it is in defiance of the logic or moral standard, the power of judicial review may be exercised. It further shows that when a Court is satisfied that there is abuse or misuse of power and when the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, it is incumbent upon the Court to intervene, subject to the restrain of the judicial review.
20. There cannot be second opinion on the point that the power vested to the office-bearers of the Market Committee is coupled with the public duty. It is by now well settled that when any power is coupled with the public duty, such power has got to be exercised, keeping in view the duty owed to the people in contra-distinction to any personal interest of the office-bearers of the Market Committee. The moment there is involvement of personal interest, the objectivity will be lost and it would attract Page 44 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined the involvement of bias, which is popularly known as personal bias. When any person or a body takes decision, keeping in view the personal interest, though such decision may be within the statutory provisions of law, it would be with the vice of bias and consequently not meeting with the test of propriety to be observed while exercising the statutory power. When any decision is taken by an authority clothed with the power with the element of bias, such a decision cannot be said as for a public good. Considering the matter only from the point of election, it does appear that when the office-bearers have to take appropriate decision on the eve of the election, such power, if to be considered with the public duty, will be for maintenance of the basic democratic principles of election to be held in a free and fair manner.
* * *
27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, it is observed and held that the impugned action for inclusion of the names of the aforesaid traders, who have been granted licences for the first time on the eve of the election can be said as not meeting with the test of propriety to be observed by the Market Committee on the eve of election and consequently such persons/licence holders would not get eligibility to be included in the voters list. The impugned order of the authorized officer is quashed and set aside with the further direction that the inclusion of the names of all such persons in the voters list of traders constituency, who have been granted licences for the first time was ultra vires the powers under the Act of the Market Committee and also of the authorized officer and consequently, those persons shall not be entitled to cast their votes at the ensuing election of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Karjan."
[20] In the case on hand, the Societies, which are sought to be added in the voters list, admittedly, not registered in the eve of Page 45 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined election. All the Societies, those are sought to be added in the voters list, are at least 10 years old. The Societies are dispensing agricultural credit either through the District Cooperative Banks or by the private fund or by both. Some of the Societies have dispensed agricultural credit near to the date of declaration of election. It is, however, not the case that such dispensation of agricultural credit was done by the outgoing Managing Committee as the said A.P.M.C. is being managed by the Administrator since past one year. Thus, it is not the case that outgoing Managing Committee body has misused any of its position and powers.
Significantly, such disbursement of loan made by the District Bank, on which, there is no control of the Marketing Committee. The District Bank is a independent Body altogether.
[21] In the case of Dolat Prabhubhai Dumaniya vs. Director - Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance reported in 2013(2) GLH 157, the facts were that election process commenced from 9th January 2013 and the Societies had obtained license from the Market Committee on 11th January 2013 and therefore, eligibility was acquired for inclusion of their names in the Page 46 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Cooperative Societies Constituency after the commencement of process of election. In the said context, the Division Bench has held thus as under:
"16. As observed in the case of Patan Proper Fal and Shak Bhaji Kharid Vechan Sahakari Mandli Ltd. (supra), the process of election can be said to have commenced from the date on which the Director has exercised powers under Rule 4 of the Rules and all stages of elections are so conjoint with the manner and mode of holding of the election, it is not possible for us to find that the process of election cannot be said to have commenced after exercise of powers under Rule 4 of the Rules. There are three reasons for which we are inclined to take the aforesaid view. The first is that Part III of the Rules under the Head Election of Market Committee begins with Rule 4 providing for the power with Director to pass the order in writing for fixation of the dates of the election and for publication of such order passed by him by affixing the copy in market committee as well as at the conspicuous place in the principal market yard. Therefore, it appears that the intention of the legislature to begin with the process of commencement of election is from the stage of Rule 4. The second reason is that all stages, including that of Rules 7 and 10, would be only after the power is exercised under Rule 4 by the Director. Therefore, in absence of any exercise of powers under Rule 4, it cannot be said that the process of election has commenced or that the subsequent stages of the elections, including that of Rules 7 and 10 would accrue. The third reason is that when the Court is to interpret any provisions of statute, it would make a purposive interpretation so as to maintain the sanctity of election. If the interpretation is made that the process of election has not commenced after exercise of powers by the Director under Rule 4, such would leave room for a large number of manipulations to be made at the ensuing election of any market committee. After the declaration of the election programme by exercise of Page 47 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined powers by the Director under Rule 4, one can easily tinker with the sanctity of election. e.g. In the case of the Agriculturists' Constituency where the co-operative societies dispensing agricultural credit and their representatives are the voters, new societies can be formed so as to create an artificial majority or minority as may be convenient to the ruling party. If certain societies are created and the show is made as that of functioning by such societies by dispensing agricultural credit, those societies would get themselves included in the voters' list and consequently, a situation may be created which would materially affect the representation to be made from such voters' constituency of agriculturists. Similarly, even in the case of Traders' Constituency, if after publication of the election programme by exercise of powers by the Director under Rule 4, new licences may be issued by the members of the market committee, who are in power so as to create an artificial majority at the ensuing election and a situation may be created which would materially affect the representation to be made from such voters' constituency of Traders. In the same manner, in the case of co-operative societies' constituency, new societies may be formed and or the market committee may issue licences so as to make eligible such societies to be included in the voters' list even after the election is declared.
17. The aforesaid are only some of the examples of tinkering with the sanctity of election, but there could be number of instances of such types. It is hardly required to be stated that once the election programme is published, the sanctity of the election process must be maintained by all concerned. Any attempt to tinker with the sanctity of the election would adversely affect the maintenance of the democratic principles to be observed in a free and fair manner for holding of the election. Once an election programme is published by fixing various stages of election, it would be known to all concerned that the process of election has already commenced and they should not enter into any act which may result into adversely affecting the process of the election and the smooth course of holding election by maintenance of the democratic principles.Page 48 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
18. In view of aforesaid observations and discussion, we find that it is not possible to accept the contention of the respondents that the election process could not be said to have commenced from the date on which the Director has exercised powers under Rule 4 of the Rules and has fixed the various stages of the election and has published the same.
19. Once the process of election has commenced from 09.01.2013, any person getting eligibility after such date can be termed as not entitled to be included in the voters' list. In the same manner, the Authorised Officer will have no authority or competence or jurisdiction to include the names of such voters who have acquired eligibility after 09.01.2013. If the facts of the present case are examined further, in Special Civil Application No.1890 of 2013, the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 have obtained licences from the market committee on 11.01.2013. Therefore, the eligibility for inclusion of their names in the voters' list of co-operative societies' constituency could be said to have acquired only on 11.01.2013, which is later to 09.01.2013. Therefore, the eligibility could be said to have acquired for inclusion of their names in the co-operative societies' constituency after the commencement of the process of election.
20. In Special Civil Application No.1891 of 2013, the respondent Nos.4 to 9 have come into existence only on 10.01.2013 since they are registered on 10.01.2013. The said date of registration is also later to the commencement of the process of the election. Under the circumstances, they have acquired eligibility after commencement of the process of election.
21. In Special Civil Application No.1897 of 2013, the respondent Nos.4 to 8 are registered only on 10.01.2013 and the licences have been granted by the market committee on 11.01.2013. As both the dates are later to the commencement of the process of election i.e. 09.01.2013, it could be said that Page 49 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined they have acquired the status only after the commencement of the process of election.
22. As all the aforesaid societies have acquired eligibility after commencement of the process of election i.e. after 09.01.2013, their names or the names of members of the representative of the societies could not have been included in the voters' list by the Authorised Officer. The action of the Authorised Officer, in our view, can be said as wholly without jurisdiction.
23. We may also record that there are allegations made by the petitioners in the petitions that after commencement of the process of election only with a view to have artificial majority, the group which is in power in the market committee, has got such societies registered and or the licences have been issued by the market committee by circular resolution though not warranted under Rule 35. It was submitted that such procedure for circular resolution for issuance of licence is unknown to Rule 35 of the Rules. In our view, once there was no jurisdiction with the Authorised Officer to include the names of those persons who acquire eligibility after the election programme was declared, we need not examine the allegation further, except observing that be it the group having majority in the market committee or be it the group having minority in the market committee, none can be permitted to tinker with the sanctity of the election and/or to frustrate democratic principles to be observed in a fair and free manner at the election."
[22] In the case on hand, it is not the case that the Societies have been formed and registered after publication of election programme nor dispensed with agricultural credit thereafter. In fact, registration of Societies and dispensation of agricultural credit both were prior to declaration of election.
Page 50 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined [23] In the case of Chanchpur Arthsam Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2023(4) GLR 2597, the facts were that the Authorized Officer has deleted the name of the petitioner Society only on the ground that the petitioner - Societies is not dealing through three-tier cooperative credit structure. The learned Single Judge, in the said case, considering the decisions in the case of Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited (supra) as well as Rampura Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited vs. Authorized Officer and Election Officer (Marketing) reported in 2019(0) AIJEL-HC-
240289, has held thus as under:
"12. Therefore, the judgment of the learned single Judge in the case of Rampura Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra), has been confirmed by the Division Bench and therefore, the principle, is by now, well settled that the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies dispensing agricultural credit has to be as per the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1963 and the credit transaction, should be as per the three tier co- operative credit structure as defined under Section 2(7A) of the Act of 1961. Mr V. C. Vaghela, learned advocate, could not dispute the said position and thus, contention raised by the petitioner societies that there are divergent views taken, would be fallacious and cannot be accepted.Page 51 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
13. In view of the above, let me also refer to the judgment in the case of Shree Abhay Gopalak Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Limited (supra) of the learned single Judge. In the said case, the issue, was as to what meaning should be assigned to phrase "Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies"
included in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1963. It is held and observed that by virtue of the Amendment Act of 2015, the legislature now intends that except the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies, no other cooperative societies though dispensing agricultural credit should be made entitled to elect 8 agriculturists. The insertion of the word 'primary' would suggest that the societies at the grass root level dealing mainly in advancing agricultural credit are intended to be entitled to elect 8 agriculturists whose names are enlisted in the voters list. The learned single Judge, therefore, held and observed that when clause (i) of sub- section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1963 requires only Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area to elect 8 agriculturists for the purpose of constitution of market area, the same is in furtherance of the object of the Act and, therefore, only those societies with prime object of providing agricultural credit can be said to be eligible to be included in the voters list. This Court, while not accepting the contention that the amendment act of 2015 has widened horizon to include all the co-operative societies dispensing agricultural credits, held and observed that if all the societies with one of the objects of dispensing agricultural credit are intended to be included without any exception, there was no need to incorporate the words "primary, agricultural, credit"
before the words "cooperative societies". It has been held and observed that considering the phrase used by the legislature while amending clause (i) of sub- section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1963, only those societies which have their main object to do business of advancing agricultural credit activities would be considered to be the primary agricultural credit cooperative societies for the purpose of section 11(1)(i) of the Act of 1963.Page 52 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined 13.1 The issues considered were viz. (i) the nature; (ii) the membership; (iii) the power and freedom to decide its financial and internal administrative matters; (iv) minimal subscription by the State Government; (v) payment of dividend, subject to guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India or National Bank; (vi) liberty to affiliate or disaffiliate any federal society of its choice, subject to passing of the Resolution, so on and so forth of the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society; however, the issue as regards dispensing agricultural credit through three tier co-operative credit structure, was not considered. Pertinently and at the cost of repetition, it is required to be noted that the issue, was to assign meaning to the phrase Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies and this Court, considering various provisions of the various statues, held that when clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1963 requires only Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area, the same, is in furtherance of the object of the Act and therefore, only those societies with prime object of providing agricultural credit, should be said to be eligible to be included in the voters list. The arguments of the learned counsel that the amendment Act has widened the horizon to include all the co-operative societies dispensing agricultural credit, was not accepted.
[13.2 Besides, the aforesaid aspect, is strengthened by the observations made in the case of Narendrasinh Rupsinh Chauhan (supra). In fact, in the said judgment, in paragraph 22, it has been recorded that "the main contention about Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies is based on the amendment brought in Section 11 of the Act of 1963.
".......The argument, is also based on the decision of the Court in the case of Shree Abhay Gopalak Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Limited (supra)". This Court, has further recorded that "on the basis of the judgment, it is contended to recognize a society as Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, the parameters is the 3-tier pattern of credit dispensation."Page 53 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined This court, therefore, in paragraph 23, in the opening sentence, has observed that "the closer look of the judgment does not indicate so."
In paragraph 27, this Court, was of the opinion that "the judgment in the case of Shree Abhay Gopalak Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Limited (supra), does not support the contention of the petitioner that the only and effective parameters to decide the character of Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society is dispensing of credit in three tier system and that such definition will have application to the facts of the case."
Relevant paragraphs 22, 23 and 27 of the said judgment, read thus:
"22. The main contention raised about 'Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society' is based on the Amendment brought in Section-11 of APMC Act, 1963, where Phrase "Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society' was inserted in this section. The argument is also based on the decision of the Court in a group of petition being Special Civil Application No.2000 of 2016 & allied matters in case of "SHREE ABHAY GOPALAK VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED v/s. STATE OF GUJARAT" dated 15-03-2016. On basis of this judgment, it is contended that to recognize as society as Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society, the parameters is the 3-tier Pattern of Credit dispensation.
23. The closer look at the aforementioned judgment does not indicate so. It appears the attempt in that petition was to include Co-operative Credit Society involved in dairy framing activity in the definition of Primary Agriculture Credit Co- operative Society, Para-7 & 8 of the judgment reads as under:
"7. The controversy in the present group of petitions is Page 54 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined concerning preparation of voters list for the first constituency falling within section 11(1)(i) i.e. as regards election of eight agriculturists who will be the members of the market committee with other members to be elected and nominated as provided in section 11 to constitute the market committee.
8. As per section 11(1)(i) of the Act before it was amended by Amendment Act, 2015, except the cooperative marketing societies and cooperative milk producing societies dispensing cooperative agricultural societies, credit all were entitled to elect eight agriculturists to be the members of Market Committee. Now, by Amendment Act, 2015, clause (I) of section 11(1) is substituted by new clause (i) whereunder it is provided that eight agriculturists whose names are enlisted in the voters' list published by the Election Commission of India for the market area shall be elected by members of managing committee of the primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area. Thus, only Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies are made entitled to elect eight agriculturists."
27. In view of the aforesaid, Court is of the opinion that the judgment of this Court in case of SHREE ABHAY GOPALAK (supra), does not support the contention of the petitioner that the only or effective parameters to decide the character of Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society is dispensing of credit in three tier system and that such definition will have application to the facts of the case. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce only relevant para from Affidavit of one such respondent Credit Society, as the Affidavits of each Respondent Credit Society is almost identical and have remain unconverted.
"3.3 The deponent states that Section-11(1)(i) provides that 10 agriculturists having land such are to be elected by the members of managing committee of primary agricultural credit co-Page 55 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined operative societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area. It is submitted that the deponent society has been registered in the year 2014 and since then it is dispensing agricultural credit. It is submitted that in the last election of APMC, Balasinor the names of members of managing committee of deponent society was included in the voters list of Balasinor APMC and the members of the society had taken part in the election and no one had raised objection against the inclusion of names of the deponent society in the voters list of agriculturist constituency for Balasinor constituency.
3.4 It is submitted that society is dispensing agricultural credit every year to the members of the society. It is submitted that bye-laws of the society are registered and bye law no.4(1) of the bye laws provides that the society can create funds from the below mentioned sources:
(a) from shares (1) from members (2) from Government
(b) from deposit (1) from members (2) from non members of the area of the operation
(c) from loans
(d) from gifts
(e) admission fee Since due to political reasons the District Co-operative Banks was not ready to grant loans to the deponent society therefore the society created its own fund by accepting deposits from its members and have granted loans to the needy members of the society. It is submitted that the society is dispensing agriculture credit every year and the accounts of the society are audited every year. No objection has been raised by the auditor from dispensing agriculture credit from the society. It is submitted therefore the objections raised by the petitioner is not tenable. It is submitted that the authorized officer pursuant to the declaration of election programme had asked by letter dated 21-
12-2020 to forward the names of the members of the managing committee along with the documents showing dispensation of agricultural credit. The deponent society had produced the Page 56 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined necessary documents to the authorized officer on 28-12-2020." While observing thus, this Court, did not entertain the petition and was of the opinion that nothing has been indicated on facts to make out an extraordinary and special circumstance so as to warrant immediate interference of this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
[23.1] In the aforesaid decision, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies dispensing agricultural credit has to be as per the provisions of clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1963 and the credit transaction, should be as per the three tier cooperative credit structure, as defined under Section 2(7A) of the Act of 1961.
[23.2] It is pertinent to note that as per the facts of the present case, the respondents - Societies are admittedly the registered Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies and thereby, said to be within Cooperative Credit Structure, as defined under Section 2(7-A) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.
[24] In the case of Kankapura Seva Sahakari Mandali Page 57 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Limited vs. State of Gujarat [R/Special Civil Application No.17579 of 2024 and allied petitions decided on 31 st January 2025], the facts were that names of the Societies sought to be deleted from the voters list on the ground that the petitioner -
Society has not dispensed agricultural credit for four years and was only engaged in recovery activities of previously dispensed credit.
The petitioners - Societies, whose names were deleted, could not produce any document before the Authorized Officer to show that they are actively dispensing agricultural credit under three-tier system or otherwise. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the said case, not entertained the said petitions, but was pleased to relegate the petitioner to avail statutory remedy under Rule 28 in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra).
[25] In the case of Kalubhai Ishrabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2016(2) GLR 1147, the Division Bench of this Court has held thus as under:
"7. Having thus heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, a short controversy, which is not possible of an equally short answer, is whether Page 58 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined in facts of the present case, it can be stated that granting 27 new licences to the traders by the Market Committee was on the eve of the election and aimed solely at artificially securing majority for the outgoing office bearers. Before adverting to various judicial pronouncements of this Court on this issue, we may refer to some of the statutory provisions. The said Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce in the State of Gujarat. Section 11 of the Act pertains to constitution of market committee. We notice that this Section has undergone major amendments by virtue of Amending Act 14 of 2015. However, we are concerned with the unamended provisions and we would refer to such provisions in this order. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 provides that every market committee shall consist of the following members, which includes four members to be elected in the prescribed manner from amongst those traders holding general licences. Subsection (4)(a) of Section 11 provides that the term of the office of a market committee shall, save as otherwise provided in the Act, be four years from the date of the first general meeting. As per Clause-(b) of sub-section (4) of Section 11, the term of the office members of the market committee shall be coextensive with the term of the market committee.
* * *
12. It can thus be seen that in order to ensure free and fair elections for constitution of a market committee, whose elected members would hold their positions for the full term of four years of the life of the market committee, detailed provisions have been made in the said Rules. The Rules envisage different stages through which once the Director declares the election programme, the conduct of the election would pass, ultimately culminating into counting of votes and declaration of result of the election.
13. The Rules do not expressly provide for noninclusion of any person in the voters list who has been granted licence by the market committee after a particular date. However, the Courts are always alive to a situation where by last Page 59 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined minute manipulation attempt is made by the committee's outgoing office bearers, who may often times also have blessings from the official machinery to perpetuate the power. It was in this context therefore that the Division Bench of this Court in case of Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari (supra) related the eligibility of a person for inclusion in the voters list with the date by which the authorised officer is to be communicated the names as indicated in sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the said Rules. Shortly thereafter, in case of Shrutbandhu H.Popat (supra), the Division Bench noticed rather glaring facts. It was noticed that the Deputy Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance had sent a communication on 10.01.2007 for fixing the date of election and the Director had also declared the election programme on 17/18.01.2007. Meeting of the licence committee of the APMC was convened on 20.01.2007, i.e. after the said two events, during which as many as 269 fresh licences were issued. It was in this background the Division Bench concluded that such action was not only illegal but was also a fraud on election process. This gave rise to an extraordinary situation, justifying intervention of the Court for the purpose of striking down the resolution dated 20.01.2007. It was directed that the authorities would not permit such persons to vote at the ensuing elections. Thus, in fact situation, the Court advanced the date for disqualifying a person newly granted licence from voting to the date of publication of the election programme by the Director. In this context, the Court also expressed an opinion that in such situation, remedy provided by Rule 28 of the Rules for election petition would not be efficacious. It was observed that such remedy is limited to the extent that Election Officer and the Election Tribunal will only examine the challenge to exclusion or inclusion of certain persons in the voters list with a limited aspect whether they were holding general licences. The Election Tribunal is not vested with any jurisdiction to examine whether the licence was granted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The matter is to be decided only by the APMC and the Director under sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 27 of the Act. The Court observed as under:-
"13. We find considerable force in the submissions of Page 60 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Mr Mihir Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the petitioners that the remedy provided by Rule 28 of the Rules is limited to the extent that election officer and the Election Tribunal will only examine the challenge to exclusion or inclusion of certain persons in the list of voters for the constituency of traders holding general licences under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act only with the limited aspect whether they were traders holding general licences. The Election Tribunal is not vested with any jurisdiction to examine whether the licence was granted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. On the contrary, the matter is to be decided only by the APMC and the Director under the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 27 of the Act. In the election petition under Rule 28, there cannot be any collateral challenge to the grant, renewal, refusal, cancellation or suspension of general licences of traders."
14. The quest of the Courts for ensuring elections, often referred to as free and fair elections to a democratic institution like APMC, which otherwise enjoys a statutory status, did not end here nor extraordinary situations every once in a while presenting themselves before the Court ceased. As noted, in case of Chandrakant Manibhai Patel, the Court noticed that previously there were only 300 to 400 licence holders. On 03.05.2013, the Director had appointed Election and Autthorised Officers in terms of Rule 4 of the said Rules. He also declared various stages for holding election. Shortly before that, on 01.05.2013, the Market Committee had granted as many as 1164 new licences to the traders. It was in this background, the Court applied the principle of artificial inflation of majority by inducting favourable voters on the eve of elections. The Court applied the principle of real bias, fraud on the statute and also considered the question whether such exercise can be tested on the ground of not only legality but also propriety.
15. Likewise, in case of Mahendra Maganbhai Patel (supra), the Division Bench noticed that there were existing 48 traders holding general licences. The APMC in its meeting Page 61 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined dated 20.11.2013 granted 58 fresh licences. The election programme was declared by the Director on 17.11.2013, which was published in the newspaper on 21.11.2013. In this background, the Court opined that only conclusion possible was that the action is nothing but a malafide exercise of powers to make the new licence holders eligible for inclusion in the voters list to create an artificial majority. In the process, the Court also considered the contours of the powers of the Authorized Officer while preparing the voters list. The Court was of the opinion that even while preparing preliminary voters list, the Authorized Officer should be given certain particulars such as full names of the traders holding general licences along with place of residence. If such particulars are not provided, the Authorized Officer may call for relevant particulars to satisfy himself about the same. The Court was of the opinion that this would ensure maintenance of democratic principles.
16. In the present case, the real question is not whether the Court should interfere at an interim stage of conduct of election once the election programme has been declared and the election process has commenced. The Court has intervened and passed an interim order precluding certain licence holders from voting. The question is whether concept of induction of members on the eve of election to tamper with the democratic process can be applied. As noted, in different situations, the Courts have either chosen to or refused to interfere with induction of new members at a late stage shortly before conduct of the elections. Such restrictions were made on the ground of malafide exercise of powers or what was viewed as a complete fraud on the statute, on the grounds of bias or even impropriety. The common thread through all these judgments is the topmost anxiety of the Courts to ensure free and fair elections and to the possible extent eliminate manipulation and interference by the office bearers and the State machinery. To all these categories already mentioned by different Courts in different judgments noted above, we may add one more, viz. attempt on part of the committee's outgoing office bearers to perpetuate the power through unfair means by using official machinery and in some cases, with the aid of the State mechanism.
Page 62 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
17. There is, however, thin line between deft political maneuvering and gross abuse of the official powers. The Court, while expressing its anxiety to ensure an election insulated from the external pressures, would also be acutely conscious of its respect for the democratic process of holding an election as per the statutory provisions. With this, we may revisit the facts. It is true that the election of the AMPC was delayed on ground which itself was not a fresh one. As noted, at one point, the Director announced election programme on 10.12.2014, which envisaged what the election would be completed by 11.03.2015. However, on the ground that areas of three new villages would have to be included in the market area, the election programme was abandoned midway. It is also true that addition of three new villages was not a recent phenomena. However, this by itself cannot be a ground to attribute malafide on behalf of the Director or the State authorities, that too in absence of any serious allegations in this respect. All that, therefore, have on record is that when the petitioner urged the Court to direct the respondents to continue the election programme undisturbed, the Court in its order dated 23.03.2015, did not accept such formula on the ground that when the possible addition of new villages, entire constitution of market area would undergo a change. While expecting the authorities to complete the process of inducting new villages in the market area expeditiously, the Court expressed a hope that the election shall he held for the market committee as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from 01.03.2015. It is true that this time line was not scrupulously followed by the respondents. The petitioner was therefore forced to move yet another petition, in which a statement was made that election programme would be declared latest by 10.04.2015.
18. In the meantime, on an agenda circulated on 20.02.2015, through resolution dated 28.02.2015, some 20 new licences were granted. Few more licences were granted on 31.03.2015, for which agenda was circulated on 23.03.2015. The case of the petitioner is not that such licences were wrongly granted; that the licence holders were not genuine traders; that their applications for grating Page 63 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined licences were incomplete. Counsel for the petitioner, in fact, clarified that the petitioner has not challenged the resolution of the market committee to grant such licences. We may also recall that there were previously 166 general licence holders in the traders constituency. 27 new licences have been granted during February and March 2015. The new election programme was declared on 03.04.2015. The facts of the present case do not suggest stretching concept of artificial induction of large number of voters to influence the outcome of the ensuing elections. Neither averments in the petition nor facts on record are strong enough to view the entire exercise by the market committee as one integrated attempt to first delay the election on wrong pretext and then to further delay declaration of new election till the Chairman successfully inducted new traders, who may be favourable to him. As noted, the line of distinction between deft political maneuvering and abuse of power is sometimes thin. In the anxiety to ensure fairness in election process, the Court would not take a view which would either limit the powers of elected autonomous body or to paralyze its functions long before the election is declared.
19. Learned Counsel Shri Dipen Desai for the petitioner drew our attention to an order dated 23.09.2011 passed in Contempt Petition No.2403 of 2011 in case of Dilipbhai C.Nathwani Vs. State of Gujarat Through Secretary & Ors., where the Court took a strong objection to the Director not holding elections as directed by the Court and in the meantime, the market committee granting new licences. However, it is a case where the Court had given specific schedule and application for extension of time was refused, finding that the respondents were in clear contempt and in the meantime, had also inducted new members. In the present case, as noted, the Division Bench had not given a rigid time limit nor any directions to complete the elections before a certain last date. It is true that when the Court expresses a hope, the authorities are expected to carry out the wish of the Court. Nevertheless, expression of hope cannot be equated with issuance of direction. The Court also used the term "preferably", clearly indicating that there was no clear direction for completion of election before certain date without fail. The order permitted and the respondents Page 64 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined are allowed a little degree of flexibility.
20. In case of Shrutbandhu H.Popat (supra), the Division Bench was of the opinion that the Election Tribunal and the Election Officer would not be able to decide whether licence granted was in accordance with relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and such issues are to be decided only by the APMC and the Director in appeal. In case of Mahendra Maganbhai Patel (supra), the Division Bench interpreted the relevant Rules and expressed an opinion that if the Authorized Officer finds that the licences were issued after declaration of the election under Rule 4 or after the declaration of election programme under Rule 2 or on the eve of the declaration, in that case, considering the decision of the High Court, he may not include names of these persons in the voters list. In the present litigation, we need not thrash out this issue. We may, however, plant the seeds of doubt, which, in proper case, may have to be considered. While entrusting power to the Authorized Officer to apply principle of induction of voters on the eve of elections with malafide intention, whether, in order to eliminate one evil, would we not be opening the possibility of creating another one?
21. The petition would therefore have to be dismissed. Before closing, however, a tricky issue of restoring the position prior to passing of the interim order dated 15.06.2015 would have to be tackled. In the election conducted, in compliance with the interim directions of the High Court, two candidates polled equal number of votes. Out of four seats for traders constituency, the fourth had to be decided through drawing of lots. Counsel Shri Anshin Desai stated that unsuccessful candidate has filed an election petition which is pending. One possibility therefore is to vacate the interim order and allow the election petitioner to pursue his remedies with the aid of this judgment. The second possibility would be to ensure re- election for all four seats in the traders constituency. Since the possible outcome, if 27 licence holders were allowed to vote, cannot be predicted, particularly looking to the number of votes polled by the four successful candidates. However, none of these four candidates are joined as respondents in Page 65 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined this petition. Therefore, it would not be possible to pass any such order in their absence. We therefore adopt the first formula and allow the election petitioner to pursue his election petition on the basis of functioning of interim relief previously granted.
22. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated."
[26] In the case of Narendrasinh Rupsinh Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2021(0) GUJHC 33729, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held thus as under:
"20 . Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. It appears that the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered in SCA No.2128 of 2016 and allied matters wherein the objection was raised against the societies which were not primary agriculture credit cooperative societies and the loan transaction shown by the said societies were bogus and sham. The authorized officer found substance in the objection and thereby deleted the names of the society as not being primary agriculture credit cooperative societies and the dispensation of agriculture credit being not genuine. Therefore, the said societies challenged the order of the authorized officer before the Hon'ble High Court and the coordinate bench of this Hon'ble court has upheld the decision of the authorized officer and dismissed the Petition on merits stating that the decision of the authorized officer does not warrant interference. While dismissing the Petitions the Hon'ble Court also came to the conclusion that the societies were not primary agriculture credit co- operative societies and the dispensation of agriculture credit shown by them was bogus and sham. The same judgment was challenged in appeal before the Page 66 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined division bench and even the division bench concurred with the findings given by the Ld. Single judge and further held that the challenge to the exclusion or inclusion can be made only after the elections are over in an election petition under rule28 of the rules.
21 . The second judgment relied by the Petitioner was SCA No.3801 of 2019 and allied matters wherein also the coordinate bench relying on the judgment rendered in SCA No.2128 of 2016 dismissed the Petition with a finding that no extra ordinary case has been made out by the Petitioner therefore the Petition was dismissed. Whereas in the present Petition the objector has raised an objection that the dispensation of agriculture credit by the deponent societies is not under 3 tire structure. Section 11(1)(i) nowhere provides that the dispensation of agriculture credit should only be under 3 tire structure. It only provides that there should be dispensation of agriculture credit. Therefore the authorized officer while deciding the objection found that the dispensation of agriculture credit by the deponent societies is genuine and therefore did not accept the objection of the Petitioner. Having failed before the authorized officer the Petitioners have filed the present case stating that the deponent societies are not primary agriculture credit cooperative societies and have not dispensed agriculture credit under 3 tire system and the order of the authorized officer is without jurisdiction. The authorized officer has rejected the objection at the stage of publication of provisional voters list and therefore there is no illegality committed by the authorized officer. Therefore the question with regard to dispensation of agriculture credit if at all questioned by the Petitioner that it is a disputed question of fact and therefore the present petition is not required to be entertained. The authorized officer has come to the conclusion that the obje3ction raised by objector is incorrect and the societies have dispensed agriculture credit.Page 67 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined 22 . The main contention raised about 'Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society' is based on the Amendment brought in Section11 of APMC Act, 1963, where Phrase "Primary Agriculture Credit Co- operative Society' was inserted in this section. The argument is also based on the decision of the Court in a group of petition being Special Civil Application No.2000 of 2016 & allied matters in case of "SHREE ABHAY GOPALAK VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED v/s. STATE OF GUJARAT" dated 15032016. On basis of this judgment, it is contended that to recognize as society as Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society, the parameters is the 3tier Pattern of Credit dispensation.
23 . The closer look at the aforementioned judgment does not indicate so. It appears the attempt in that petition was to include Cooperative Credit Society involved in dairy framing activity in the definition of Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society, Para7 & 8 of the judgment reads as under:
"7. The controversy in the present group of petitions is concerning preparation of voters list for the first constituency falling within section 11(1) (i) i.e. as regards election of eight agriculturists who will be the members of the market committee with other members to be elected and nominated as provided in section 11 to constitute the market committee.
8.As per section 11(1)(i) of the Act before it was amended by Amendment Act, 2015, except the cooperative marketing societies and cooperative milk producing societies dispensing cooperative agricultural societies, credit all were entitled to elect eight agriculturists to be the members of Market Committee. Now, by Amendment Act, 2015, clause (I) of section 11(1) is substituted by new clause (i) whereunder it is provided that eight Page 68 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined agriculturists whose names are enlisted in the voters' list published by the Election Commission of India for the market area shall be elected by members of managing committee of the primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area. Thus, only Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies are made entitled to elect eight agriculturists."
24 . Thereafter, this Court has stated in Para16 as under:
16. The Court, having heard the learned advocates for the parties, finds that the legislature has provided for constitution of market committee by representatives of different classes. First amongst them is selection of eight agriculturists by election as per section 11(1)(i) of the Act by the cooperative societies of the type provided in section 11(1) (i) of the Act. Section 11(1)(i) as it originally stood permitted all cooperative societies dispensing agricultural credit, to elect eight agriculturists and for such purpose, the members of their managing committee formed electorate on their inclusion in the voters' list prepared as provided in the Rules. In the year 2006, the legislature debarred the cooperative marketing societies and Milk Produce Cooperative Societies from being part of the electorate to elect eight agriculturists. It appears that at the time of election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Siddhpur somewhere in the year 2010, dispute had arisen as to whether the Milk Producing Cooperative Societies could be included in the voters' list of agriculturists' constituency on exclusion of animal husbandry and animal husbandry products from the schedule of agriculture produce. The objector whose application was turned down against inclusion of Milk Producing Societies in voters' list had preferred special civil application Page 69 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined no.13689 of 2009 before this Court and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that since the animal husbandry and animal husbandry products were taken out from the schedule of agricultural produce, the societies dealing with the animal husbandry and animal husbandry products could not form part of the electorate................
25 . The Court then proceeded with note of approval to the submissions made on behalf of the State in Para25 as under:
"25. In the context of the Act, it appears that the insertion of primary agricultural credit by Amendment Act of 2015 in section 11(1)(i) is to make clear the intention of the legislature that it is only the societies which have their main object to do principal business of providing financial assistance to their members for agricultural purpose or for the activities connected with the agriculture will be entitled to elect 8 agriculturists from the agriculturists constituency and to make such intention more clear, the words 'agricultural credit' are repeated in the phrase "primary agricultural credit'. As rightly submitted by the learned Addl. A.G. Mr. Jani that the Amendment Act of 2015 has changed entire scenario. The Court finds that in view of the Amendment Act, 2015, judgment rendered in the case of Rameshbhai Ganeshbhai Chaudhari (supra) could not be of any help to the petitioners. Therefore, even if the classification done by the Registrar is not to be resorted to determine whether a particular society is primary agricultural credit society or not, the intention of the societies could be well gathered from their bye laws whether their main object is to do principal business of providing financial accommodation for agricultural purposes or for the purposes connected with the agriculture activities."
26 . Ultimately, in Para28, the Court has held as under:
Page 70 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined "28. When sec. 11(1)(i) now requires only primary agricultural credit cooperative societies dispensing credit in the market area to elect 8 agriculturists for the purpose of constitution of market area, it is in furtherance of the object of the Act and, therefore, only those societies with prime object of providing agricultural credit could be said to be eligible to be included in the voters list. It is therefore not possible to accept the argument of the learned advocates for the petitioners societies that the Amendment Act 2015 has widened horizon to include all agricultural cooperative societies dispensing agricultural credits. If all societies with one of the objects of dispensing agricultural credit are intended to be included without any exception, there was no the words" primary, agricultural, need to incorporate credit" before the words " cooperative societies" in section 11(1)(i) of the Act. The words "primary agriculture credit" therefore do not meant to be read as a simple adjective noun without any meaning. The legislature do not amend the laws just to beautify the language. Use of the words "agriculture credit" once again while amending section 11(1)(i) of the Act by Amendment Act of 2015, and prefixing word "primary" before the words, "agricultural credit"
makes the intention of the legislature more clear to give unequivocal indication that none except the societies which have prime object to do principal business of advancing finance for agricultural purpose and for the purposes connected with the agriculture activities could be included in the voters' list for first constituency."
27 . In view of the aforesaid, Court is of the opinion that the judgment of this Court in case of SHREE ABHAY GOPALAK (supra), does not support the contention of the petitioner that the only or effective parameters to decide the character of Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society is dispensing of credit in Three tier system and that such definition will have Page 71 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined application to the facts of eh case. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce only relevant para from Affidavit of one such respondent Credit Society, as the Affidavits of each Respondent Credit Society is almost identical and have remain unconverted.
"3.3 The deponent states that Section11(1)(i) provides that 10 agriculturists having land such are to be elected by the members of managing committee of primary agricultural credit co- operative societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area. It is submitted that the deponent society has been registered in the year 2014 and since then it is dispensing agricultural credit. It is submitted that in the last election of APMC, Balasinor the names of members of managing committee of deponent society was included in the voters list of Balasinor APMC and the members of the society had taken part in the election and no one had raised objection against the inclusion of names of the deponent society in the voters list of agriculturist constituency for Balasinor constituency.
3.4 It is submitted that society is dispensing agricultural credit every year to the members of the society. It is submitted that byelaws of the society are registered and bye law no.4(1) of the bye laws provides that the society can create funds from the below mentioned sources:
(a) from shares (1) from members (2) from Government
(b) from deposit (1) from members (2) from non members of the area of the operation
(c) from loans
(d) from gifts Page 72 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
(e) admission fee Since due to political reasons the District Co-
operative Banks was not ready to grant loans to the deponent society therefore the society created its own fund by accepting deposits from its members and have granted loans to the needy members of the society. It is submitted that the society is dispensing agriculture credit every year and the accounts of the society are audited every year. No objection has been raised by the auditor from dispensing agriculture credit from the society. It is submitted therefore the objections raised by the petitioner is not tenable. It is submitted that the authorized officer pursuant to the declaration of election programme had asked by letter dated 21122020 to forward the names of the members of the managing committee along with the documents showing dispensation of agricultural credit. The deponent society had produced the necessary documents to the authorized officer on 2812- 2020."
28 . The reference to the byelaws of one such Respondent Credit Society especially relating to the objective and provision relating to corpus would go on to the indicate factually, the area of operation of the Credit Society and apparently in consonance with the requirement to give it a characteristic of an Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society."
[27] At this stage, it would be profitable to take note of the relevant observations of the Full Bench in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra) as under:
"29. Turning now to the second contention namely; can remedy under Rule 28 can be termed to be efficacious remedy. Learned Counsel Mr Patel after inviting our attention to rule 28 Page 73 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined submitted that even though the authority either can cancel or confirm and amend the declared result and can direct to hold fresh election in the event of setting aside the election, if the non-inclusion of the names in the voters' list has not materially affected, result of the election which is very difficult to establish then, the election cannot be set aside. In that event, the right under the statute to cast the vote shall not be available to the person whose name is wrongfully excluded from the voters' list. He submitted that even the Director or the competent authority under rule 28 cannot confer the right to vote. Under the provisions of rule 9 read with section 15 of the Act, the election is required to be held afresh. In that event, a person who has lost his right to vote remains the claimant for getting the right to vote but that right cannot be decided by the authority under the rules or provisions of the Act. He submitted that the voters' list is to be prepared for every election and the voters' list is not continued. If the voters' list is not continued, in that event, by no stretch of imagination, a person can get right to vote. By giving example, he submitted that if 50 voters have been excluded from the voters' list by wrongful order, in that event, in a petition by one member the right of other 49 cannot be decided. Under the circumstances, he submitted that the remedy under rule 28 cannot be termed as efficacious remedy. Finally he submitted that in absence of any right to appeal, the power conferred on authorised officer would lead to hazardous situation.
30. The arguments advanced by Mr Patel appears to be attractive, however, in substance, devoid of any merit. Having regard to the language and terminology of rule 28 of the rules, we are of the view that it leaves no room of doubt that it includes the question of inclusion, exclusion or wrongful inclusion or exclusion in an illegal, arbitrary or malafide manner of name of an eligible voter in voters' list and the question can be gone into in an election petition under Rule 28 and, therefore, in an election petition such a question can be validly raised, adjudicated and ultimately relief granted, if a case is made out and it is proved that on account of such Page 74 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined wrongful inclusion or exclusion the result of the election is materially affected. In any case, the efficacious remedy provided under the Act would not entitle the petitioner to contend as a matter or right that he is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this court.
31. On the question of maintainability of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in our opinion, the law is well settled. Mr Patel, invited our attention to the decision reported in 1988 GLH 430. There the Division Bench, after quoting the judgment of a Full Bench in the case of Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (18 GLR 714) where the principles have been clearly enumerated and held that extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is very wide, the Court should be slow in exercising the said jurisdiction where alternative efficacious remedy under the Act is available but however, if the impugned order is an ultra vires order or is nullity as being ex-facie without jurisdiction. The question of exhausting alternative remedy would hardly arise.
31.1. In the case of Mehsana Dist. Coop. Sales and Purchase Union v. State of Gujarat (1988 (2) GLR 1060), after following the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case reported in the case of Gujarat University v. N U Rajguru, (1988 (1) GLR
308), the Court have noted the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
"there may be cases where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances may exist to justify bye-passing alternative remedies".
In the case of Manda Jaganath v. K S Rathnam, reported in AIR 2004 SC 3600, the Apex Court has held after considering the provisions of Article 329(B) of the Constitution of India that "there are special situations wherein writ jurisdiction can be exercised but, special situation means error having the effect of interfering in the free flow of the scheduled election or hinder Page 75 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined the progress of the election which is the paramount consideration."
In the case of Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, reported in 2000(8) SCC page 216, the Apex Court held that the order issued by the Election Commission is open to judicial review on the ground of malafide or arbitrary exercise of powers.
32. We have gone through the aforesaid decisions closely. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the principles laid down therein. The sum and substance of those decisions apply to a situation where this Court would like to entertain a petition on the foundation that the order is ultra vires and/or without jurisdiction and/or is violating principles of natural justice. Thus, in an exceptional case, this Court can exercise the power of judicial review, which is a basic structure of the situation in such cases more particularly, in the election process. One thing is clear that this Court ordinarily would not like to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution when the process of election has been set in motion even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll.
32.1. The Supreme Court, in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swamy (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors (2001) 8 SCC 509, while dealing with the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, held that in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified society where the election process having been set in motion, the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. It was held that the proper remedy is by way of election petition before the Election Tribunal.
33. In view of the above discussion, we answer the Reference as Page 76 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined under:
i. A person whose name is not included in the voters' list can avail benefit of provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules by filing Election Petition.
ii. As the authority under Rule 28 has wide power to cancel, confirm and amend the election and to direct to hold fresh election in case the election is set aside, remedy under Rule 28 is an efficacious remedy.
iii. Even though a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable though alternative remedy is available, the powers are to be exercised in case of extraordinary or special circumstances such as where the order is ultra vires or nullity and/or ex facie without jurisdiction. The exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such questions are to be decided in an Election Petition under Rule 28 of the Rules."
[27.1] By way of the Full Bench decision of this Court, it has been made clear that this Court ordinarily would not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the process of election has been set in motion even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral rolls. The Full Bench significantly held that illegality and / or breach of Rules while preparing the voters list are also not so compelling factor which justify the exercise of powers under Article Page 77 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined 226 of the Constitution of India. Intention underlying appears to be not latent but loud and clear that all such issues and grievances fall within the domain of Election Petition under Rule 28.
[28] At this stage, it would also be useful to take notice of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia v. Dhiraj Prasad Sahu reported in (2021) 6 SCC 523, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has very succinctly explained how to interpret the electoral rolls provisions. It would be an apt to take note of relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
"S.A. Bobde, C.J.-- An interesting but important question of far-reaching consequence arises for consideration in these appeals. It is this. "Whether the vote cast by a Member of the Legislative Assembly in an election to the Rajya Sabha, in the forenoon on the date of election, would become invalid, consequent upon his disqualification, arising out of a conviction and sentence imposed by a criminal court, in the afternoon on the very same day?"
20. One fundamental principle that we may have to keep in mind while interpreting the phrase appearing in Section 8(3) is that in cases of this nature, the Court is not dealing with a fundamental right or a common law right. As pithily stated by this Court in Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal [Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, (1982) 1 SCC 691] , an election dispute lies in a special jurisdiction and hence it has to be exercised without Page 78 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined importing concepts familiar to common law and equity, unless they are ingrained in the statute itself. We may usefully extract the relevant portion of the decision in Jyoti Basu [Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, (1982) 1 SCC 691] which reads as follows:
"8. A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An election petition is not an action at common law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the common law nor the principles of equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it. Concepts familiar to common law and equity must remain strangers to Election law unless statutorily embodied."
[29] A landmark decision in the case of Election Commission of India vs. Ashok kumar reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principles governing the field of election dispute. The same can be thus quoted as under:
"28. Election disputes are not just private civil disputes between two parties. Though there is an individual or a few individuals arrayed as parties before the Court but the stakes of the Page 79 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined constituency as a whole are on trial. Whichever way the lis terminates it affects the fate of the constituency and the citizens generally. A conscientious approach with overriding consideration for welfare of the constituency and strengthening the democracy is called for. Neither turning a blind eye to the controversies which have arisen nor assuming a role of overenthusiastic activist would do. The two extremes have to be avoided in dealing with election disputes.
32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove :-
1) If an election, (the term 'election' being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections.
2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to "calling in question an election" if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election.
3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-
settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law.
4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of Page 80 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the Court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court.
5) The Court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The Court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the Court's indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the Court would act with reluctance and shall not act except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material." (emphasis supplied) [30] In a recent decision in the case of Juna Jampura Kala Kapas Utpadak Ane Rupantar Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat [R/Special Civil Application No.6685 of 2025 and allied petitions decided on 20th June 2025], this Court, in para 27, has held thus as under:
"[27] On careful consideration of the aforesaid decisions, this Court can deduce the following points:Page 81 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
(i) Election dispute lies in a special jurisdiction;
(ii) Election dispute is not a general civil dispute;
(iii) Right to elect and right to be elected are not the fundamental right, but purely a statutory right and likewise right to challenge the election is also a statutory right;
(iv) Election Petition is a statutory proceedings to which neither a common law nor the principle of equity applies, but only those Rules made by the statute are applicable;
(v) Judicial review of any order passed by the Authorized Officer during the process of election is although permissible by invoking the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but said intervention is also subject to a rider that in only special and extraordinary circumstances, if so arises, or in case where order is absolutely without jurisdiction or ultra vires in nature;
(vi) Even if an order allegedly said to be an illegal in wake of some breach of some Rules or any illegality while preparing the voters list, in that event also, intervention of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not expected;
(vii) Most importantly, inclusion and exclusion from the voters Page 82 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined list cannot be said to be any special and / or extraordinary circumstances."
[31] Keeping in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, let's advert to the questions formulated by this Court. Question Nos.(i) and (ii) are being interconnected and thus, shall have to be decided together. So as to decide the questions Nos.(i) and (ii), it is necessary to consider the provisions of Section 11(1)(i) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963, which reads thus 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 numbers of managing committee of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-
operative Societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area;"
[32] On bare perusal of the provisions of Section 11(1)(i) of Page 83 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined the A.P.M.C. Act would reveal that to become qualify to be a voter in the agriculturist constituency, the first requirement is that the Society has to be Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society and the said Society should be dispensing agricultural credit in the market area. Thus, Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society shall only be qualified if the Society is dispending agricultural credit in the market area. Pertinently, the said provision, although underwent amendment, so far as constituency with regard to traders' community and marketing society concerned by way of adding detail qualifying factors, Section 11(1)(i) has not been amended drastically by the legislature but only the word "cooperative societies" came to be replaced by the words "Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society". Importantly, the words, "dispensing agricultural credit in the market area" have not underwent any changes. The intention of the legislature appears to be clear that in the agriculturists constituency, the Societies, those are having registration of Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society, can be qualified if dispensing agricultural credit. Thus, the words "dispensing agricultural credit" has been kept intact even Page 84 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined after major amendment brought in Section 11 as a whole.
Legislature has not amended "dispensing agricultural credit" by adding any further qualifying rider such as such dispensation of agricultural credit has to be three-tier, such dispensation has to have past record in preceding years, such dispensation of credit cannot be by way of any private fund of the Society, etc. [33] In view of the aforesaid, only criteria is that the Society has to be registered as Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies. Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies is not defined in the A.P.M.C. Act, but, the same has been defined in the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act by way of Section 2(7-A). The same can be thus worth quoted as under:
"2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
...
(7A) "co-operative credit structure" means (i) the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies; (ii) the Central Co-
operative Banks; and (iii) the State Co-operative Bank;"
[34] Considering the aforesaid provisions, as per the Page 85 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Cooperative Societies Act, any of the three categories stated hereinabove, can be said to be the Cooperative Credit Structure.
Thus, if the Society is registered under the Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies, the same would fall within the definition of Section 2(7-A) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act i.e. the Cooperative Credit Structure.
[35] At this stage, in my view, the provisions of Section 44A of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act is also worth taking note of. The same can be thus read as under:
"[44A. Power of Committee of cooperative credit structure. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules or the byelaws made thereunder, the committee of every society in a co-operative credit structure shall have freedom to decide its financial and administrative matters, especially;
(i) interest rates on deposits and loans, subject to the directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India;
(ii) borrowing, investment, depositing its surplus funds, loaning policies (including individual loans) and other business policies;Page 86 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
(iii) personnel policies including issues relating to recruitment, promotion, staffing, training, posting and compensation to staff as per business requirement of the society;
(iv) internal checks and control systems, appointment of auditors, their compensation and other internal administrative issues; and
(v) borrowing from any financial institution regulated by the Reserve Bank of India, keeping in mind the interest of the society and its members."
[36] Considering the aforesaid provisions, it appears that the committee of every society, in a cooperative credit structure, shall have freedom to decide its financial and administrative matters, which includes borrowing, investment, depositing its surplus funds, loaning policies (including individual loans) and other business policies. Thus, it appears that as per the Cooperative Societies Act, the Societies, falling within the Cooperative Credit Structure, statutorily empowers to advance loan.
[37] Now, I would like to proceed with questions Nos.(i) and
(ii) by keeping in mind the principal argument advanced by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that to be Page 87 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined qualified as a voter under the provisions of Section 11(1)(i), the Society must dispense agricultural credit following three-tier system; Society must have dispensation in a retroactive nature and that single transaction of dispensation in the eve of election is not permissible and dispensation of agricultural credit from the private fund of the Society cannot be said to be actual dispensation of agricultural credit. In my view, the said contention raised by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is not worth accepting. I say so because plain reading of the provision of Section 11(1)(i) would make it clear that to become eligible voter in the agriculturists constituency, the Society must have registration as Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies. The said Society has to have dispensation of agricultural credit in the market area.
The statutory provisions do not have any stipulation with regard to any additional qualification criteria such as dispensation of credit shall be by following three-tier system, such dispensation has to have specified preceding years or dispensation of credit through Cooperative Bank and not by the private fund. In the said provisions, the words "dispensing agricultural credit in the market Page 88 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined area" have not been amended while the words "Cooperative Societies" came to be amended by replacing the words "Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies". Therefore, if the Society is registered under Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies and if the said Society is dispensing agricultural credit in the market area, then the Society would become qualify to be a voter.
Thus, if the contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is accepted, then it would be amounting to rewriting a section by adding words such as "three tier system", "retroactive dispensation of credit and / or dispensation in preceding year" and "dispensation of credit with no private fund", which is not permissible in the eye of law. Under the circumstances, the contention raised by the petitioner is not worth acceptable and is hereby rejected.
[38] In addition to the aforesaid, on perusal of the provisions of Section 2(7-A) and Section 44A of the Cooperative Societies Act, if the Society is registered as Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies, then it would fall within the definition of "cooperative credit structure" and thereby, they are free to Page 89 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined decide their own policy with regard to loan, etc. In the instant case, even as per the bye-laws of the Societies, loan, by way of private fund, is also permissible and thereby, as per the statute, if the Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies is entitled to give advances to its members from its private fund and if the same is statutorily permitted, in that event, if the Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies is disqualified, on that ground, it would be against the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act. In view of the aforesaid, in my considered opinion, if the entire provisions of Sections 11(1)(ii) and (iii) are considered, it would appear that the legislature has brought drastic change in Sections 11(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) by adding number of conditions to be fulfilled to become a qualified voter. Whereas, in Section 11(1)(i), the legislature has not disturbed the words "dispensing agriculture credit in the Market Committee", but only changed the status of the Cooperative Societies to Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies. Therefore, in my considered opinion, when there is no stipulation and / or condition attached by the legislature in Section 11(1)(i) with regard to "dispensing agricultural credit in the Page 90 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined market area", this Court cannot interpret the said words, which would amount to rewriting the provisions of law under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, in my view, if the Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area, either by its own fund or through any District Cooperative Banks, would be meeting the criteria of words used "dispensing agricultural credit in the market area" in the provisions of Section 11(1)(i). Further, in the said provisions, unlike sub-section (ii) and (iii) of Section 11(1), no insertion of qualification rider, there is no past dispensation of credit prescribed in the preceding year, thus, if such dispensation of credit is made before the declaration of election, may be for the first time, cannot be said to be disqualified merely the same was done near the date of declaration of election. In the peculiar facts of the present case, it is not the case that any Outgoing Managing Body, by misusing their powers, advanced agricultural credit with a view to become a qualified voter since past one year the Market Committee being managed by the Administrator and in case of recent dispensation, the same is being through the independent Body such as District Page 91 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Bank.
I answer the questions Nos.(i) and (ii) accordingly.
[39] So far as question No.(iii) is concerned, recently, this Court, in the case of Juna Jampura Kala Kapas Utpadak Ane Rupantar Sahakari Mandali Ltd. (supra), has considered the provisions of Rule 28 by keeping in mind the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra) and it has held thus as under:
"[27] On careful consideration of the aforesaid decisions, this Court can deduce the following points:
(i) Election dispute lies in a special jurisdiction;
(ii) Election dispute is not a general civil dispute;
(iii) Right to elect and right to be elected are not the fundamental right, but purely a statutory right and likewise right to challenge the election is also a statutory right;
(iv) Election Petition is a statutory proceedings to which neither a common law nor the principle of equity applies, Page 92 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined but only those Rules made by the statute are applicable;
(v) Judicial review of any order passed by the Authorized Officer during the process of election is although permissible by invoking the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but said intervention is also subject to a rider that in only special and extraordinary circumstances, if so arises, or in case where order is absolutely without jurisdiction or ultra vires in nature;
(vi) Even if an order allegedly said to be an illegal in wake of some breach of some Rules or any illegality while preparing the voters list, in that event also, intervention of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not expected;
(vii) Most importantly, inclusion and exclusion from the voters list cannot be said to be any special and / or extraordinary circumstances."
[40] Over and above, so far as the contention raised by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner with regard to non-
compliance of the principles of natural justice and with regard to 'Hawala' entry and the allegation of ghost societies are, in my view, serious disputed questions of facts and thus, the same can Page 93 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7319/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined only be decided on the basis of the evidence led before the appropriate authority in an Election Petition under Rule 28.
[41] Accordingly, in my opinion, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not like to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the case on hand, more particularly, when inclusion and / or exclusion in the voters list is not falling in the category of special and / or extraordinary circumstances.
[42] For the foregoing reasons, all these petitions are not entertained and hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) CHANDRESH Page 94 of 94 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 23:21:36 IST 2025