Gujarat High Court
Thakkar Babulal Gopaldas & 2 vs Patel Maganlal Chunilal & 8 on 21 August, 2017
Author: R. Subhash Reddy
Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1249 of 2017
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12301 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10814 of 2017
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1249 of 2017
================================================================
THAKKAR BABULAL GOPALDAS & 2....Appellant(s) Versus PATEL MAGANLAL CHUNILAL & 8....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 3 MR MB GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 3 MR KM ANTANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 7 - 9 MR ANSHIN DESAI SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR NISHIT P GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 6 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI Date : 21/08/2017 CAV ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, as the process of election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Patan (for short, "the APMC Patan") has already commenced.Page 1 of 20
HC-NIC Page 1 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER
2. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No.12301 of 2007 whereby, the petition is allowed and the Election Officer / Authorized Officer, respondent no.9 herein, has been directed to substitute the name of petitioner no.2, in place of petitioner no.1, as representative of petitioner no.6Firm in the final voters' list.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.B. Gandhi for the appellants, learned Senior Advocate Mr. A.H. Desai assisted by learned advocate Mr. N.P. Gandhi for respondent nos.1 to 6, original petitioner nos.1 to 6 and learned AGP Mr. K.M. Antani for respondent nos.7 to 9.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that the election program of APMC Patan was declared on 02.05.2017. The petitioner nos.1 to 5 are the Partners of petitioner no.6partnership firm. When the election program was declared, petitioner no.6 held the license of APMC Patan and in the said license, the names of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 only were reflected as representatives of the Firm. It is submitted that the name of petitioner no.1 was shown as the representative of petitioner no.6firm in the provisional voters list of Traders Constituency published on 16.05.2017. On 25.05.2017 the petitioner no.6 submitted an application to the Authorized Officer requesting to substitute the name of Page 2 of 20 HC-NIC Page 2 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER petitioner no.2 in place of petitioner no.1 in the said voters list. An application dated 01.06.2017 was also given to the Administrator of APMC Patan for incorporating the name of petitioner no.2 in the said license.
4.1 It was contended that the name of petitioner no.2 was added in the license by APMC Patan only on 30.06.2017. However, before that date, the Authorized Officer had already rejected the application dated 25.05.2017 made by petitioner no.6 seeking substitution of the name of petitioner no.2 in place of petitioner no.1 on the ground that the name of petitioner no.2 did not appear in the license as Partner of the firm on the said date.
4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that the learned single Judge has held that the Authorized Officer has not committed any error in not incorporating the name of petitioner no.2 in the provisional, revised or final voters list. It is further held that it cannot be said that the Authorized Officer had wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner no.6firm requesting to substitute the name of petitioner no.2 in place of petitioner no.1. It was submitted that after recording the above findings, the learned single Judge erred in directing the Authorized Officer to substitute the name of petitioner no.2 in place of petitioner no.1 on the ground that petitioner no.1 is required to go abroad. It was submitted that the learned single Judge Page 3 of 20 HC-NIC Page 3 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER ought not to have issued such direction, as the election process has already commenced. The issuance of such direction tantamounts to interfering with the election process. Hence, the impugned order of the learned single Judge deserves to be set aside qua the issuance of such direction to the Authorized Officer.
4.3 In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi placed reliance upon the following decisions;
(a) The decision of Apex Court in the case of Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath & Others reported in AIR 2016 SC 1094.
(b) The decision of this Court in the case of Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari v. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2007 (3) GLH 57.
(c) The unreported decision of this Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.201 of 2016 decided on 22.07.2017.
5. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Anshin Desai contended that petitioner no.6firm was established on 28.10.1993 and petitioner nos.1 to 6 are its Partners since its inception. The APMC Patan issued license in favour of petitioner no.6firm on 17.04.2017. The election program was published on 02.05.2017 and the petitioner no.6 gave the name of petitioner no.1 for casting vote on its behalf vide Page 4 of 20 HC-NIC Page 4 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER communication dated 06.05.2017. The preliminary voters list was published on 16.05.2017. On 25.05.2017 the petitioner no.6 made an application to the Authorized Officer requesting to substitute the name of petitioner no.2 in place of petitioner no.1 on the ground of some personal difficulty. It is submitted that the last date for submitting objections against the first voters list was 30.05.2017. At this stage, it is contended that when the application of petitioner no.6 was not decided by the Authorized Officer, the petitioner no.6firm submitted an application on 01.06.2017 requesting the APMC Patan to add name of petitioner no.2 in the license. On 03.06.2017 the provisional voters list was published.
5.1 It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that on 03.06.2017 the Authorized Officer informed petitioner no.6firm that since the name of petitioner no.2 is not reflected in the license, his name cannot be included in the voters list. Therefore, petitioner no.6firm made another representation on 09.06.2017. On 12.06.2017 the final voters list came to be published. It is further submitted that the APMC Patan issued a fresh license in favour of petitioner no.6 firm wherein, the names of all the petitioners were shown. The petitioners, therefore, preferred the captioned petition before the learned single Judge on 03.07.2017.
5.2 It was contended by the learned Senior Advocate that this is not a case of inclusion or exclusion of Page 5 of 20 HC-NIC Page 5 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER the names of candidates from the voters list and therefore, the direction issued by the learned single Judge to substitute the name of petitioner no.2 in place of petitioner no.1 would not cause any prejudice to anybody nor would it stall the election process.
5.3 Learned Senior Advocate referred to the provisions contained in Section 2(viii), 2(xxiii), 6 and 27 of The Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act") as well as Rules 5(2) and 7 of The Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (for short, "the Rules") and submitted that the name of the Trader holding general license in the market area is required to be published in the voters list. In the present case, the petitioner no.6 firm is holding the general license in the market committee and petitioner nos. 1 to 5 are the partners of petitioner no.6firm. As per the direction given by the learned single Judge, the name of petitioner no.2 is ordered to be substituted in place of petitioner no.1, which would not cause any prejudice to the present appellants. Further, the Authorized Officer has not challenged the order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence, the present appeal may not be entertained.
5.4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Desai placed reliance upon the following decisions;
(a) The decision of Apex Court in the case of Thammanna v. K. Veera Reddy reported in 1980(4) Page 6 of 20 HC-NIC Page 6 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER SCC 62.
(b) The decision of Apex Court in the case of Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and others reported in 2000(8) SCC 216.
(c) The decision of Apex Court in the case of Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Vishwanath and others reported in 2016(4) SCC 429.
(d) The decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Daheda Group Sewa Sahakari Mandli Limited v. R.D. Rohit, Authorized Officer and Cooperative Officer (Marketing) reported in 2006(1) GCD 211.
(e) The decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Dalichand and others v. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2007(2) GLR 1642.
(f) The decision of this Court in the case of Karjipura (Godh) Sewa Sahakari Mandli Limited v. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2015(3) GLR 2362.
(g) The decision of this Court in the case of Kalubhai Ishrabhai v. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2016(2) GLR 1147.
(h) Unreported decisions of this Court passed in Page 7 of 20 HC-NIC Page 7 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER S.C.A. No.6808/2009 and allied matters decided on 14.07.2009; in S.C.A. No.1378/2013 decided on 13.02.2013; in S.C.A. No.1199/2015 decided on 22.01.2015; S.C.A. No.21390/2016 decided on 23.12.2016; in S.C.A. No.19261/2016 decided on 23.11.2016 and in L.P.A. No.201/2006 decided on 22.07.2017.
6. We have considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates for the parties and have gone through the material on record as also the decisions relied upon by learned advocates for the respective parties. It transpires from the record that APMC Patan had issued license in favour of petitioner no.6firm on 17.04.2017. In the said license, the names of original petitioner nos.1 & 4 were shown as the representative of petitioner no.6firm. When the election program of APMC Patan was published on 02.05.2017, the petitioner no.6firm gave the name of petitioner no.1 as its representative for casting vote on its behalf, vide communication dated 06.05.2017. Accordingly, when the preliminary voters list was published on 16.05.2017, the name of petitioner no.1 was shown in the said list. However, on 25.05.2017, the petitioner no.6firm made an application to the Authorized Officer requesting to substitute the name of petitioner no.2, in place of petitioner no.1, in the voters list. The Authorized Officer verified the record and found that the name of petitioner no.1 was not mentioned in the license as a Partner of petitioner no.6firm. Therefore, vide communication Page 8 of 20 HC-NIC Page 8 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER dated 03.06.2017, the Authorized Officer informed petitioner no.6firm that the name of petitioner no.2 could not be included in the voters list.
7. It further transpires that for the first time, the petitioner no.6firm submitted an application to APMC Patan on 01.06.2017 by which a request was made to add the name of petitioner no.2 in the license. The APMC Patan accepted the request and added the name of petitioner no.2 in the license on 30.06.2017.
8. However, in the meantime, the final voters list was published on 12.06.2017 wherein, the name of petitioner no.1 was reflected as the representative of petitioner no.6firm. Against the aforesaid action, the petitioners preferred the captioned petition and the learned single Judge held that the Authorized Officer had not committed any error in not incorporating the name of petitioner no.2 in the provisional, revised or final voters list but, gave direction to the Authorized Officer to substitute the name of petitioner no.2 in place on petitioner no.1.
9. At this stage, we would like to refer to the decisions upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocates for the parties.
10. In the case of Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari (supra) relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi, the Division Bench of this Court observed in Para35 that the relevant date for determining the eligibility of a Page 9 of 20 HC-NIC Page 9 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER person for inclusion of his name in the voters list for election to the APMC is the date on which the Authorized Officer has been communicated about the name, as provided in subrule (1) of Rule 7 of the APMC Rules, 1965.
10.1 In L.P.A. No.201/2016 decided on 22.07.2016, this Bench, after considering the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra), observed that when the Authorized Officer has, after holding inquiry, included the names of the concerned appellants in the final voters list, then the said decision of the Authorized Officer can be challenged under Rule 28 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 by filing Election Petition before the appropriate authority.
10.2 In the case of Shaji K. Joseph (supra), the Apex Court in Paras - 14 and 16, observed as under;
"14. In our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with the process of election especially when the process of election had started upon publication of the election program on 27th January, 2011 and more particularly when an alternative statutory remedy was available to Respondent no.1 by way of referring the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations. So far as the issue with regard to eligibility of Respondent no.1 for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie it appears that Respondent no.1 could Page 10 of 20 HC-NIC Page 10 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER contest the election, we do not propose to go into the said issue because, in our opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without court's order. Very often, for frivolous reasons candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election.
16. Thus, in view of the aforestated settled legal position, the High Court should not have interfered with the process of election. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and direct that the result of the election should be published. We are sure that due to interim relief granted by this Court, Respondent no.1 must not have been permitted to contest the election. It would be open to Respondent no.1 to approach the Central Government for referring the dispute, if he thinks it proper to do so. No issue with regard to limitation will be raised if Respondent no.1 initiates an action under Section 5 of the Act within four weeks from today."
10.3 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai submitted that in Shaji K. Joseph's case (supra), the Apex Court has Page 11 of 20 HC-NIC Page 11 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER not considered the earlier decision rendered in the case of Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (supra). Therefore, this Court may not rely upon the said decision. It is submitted that the said decision was rendered by the Apex Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. Learned Senior Advocate placed reliance upon the observation made by the Apex Court in Para32 of the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) which reads as under;
"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 wellsettled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of Page 12 of 20 HC-NIC Page 12 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER 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 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 courts 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 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."
10.4 In case of the Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra), the Full Bench of this Court, after considering the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), held in Para33 as under;
Page 13 of 20
HC-NIC Page 13 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017
C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER
"33. In view of the above discussion, we answer the Reference as 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."
10.5 In the case of Rajendra Dalichand Koticha (supra), the Division Bench of this Court while discussing the scope of intervention of Courts in election process held that if the intervention of the Court is necessary for welfare of constituency, without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the election process, the Court would intervene to correct illegality or remove obstacle.
10.5 In the unreported decisions of this Court relied upon by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai, the decision of the Authorized Officer were set aside and Page 14 of 20 HC-NIC Page 14 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER appropriate directions were issued for inclusion / exclusion of the names of the person concerned from the voters list.
11. From the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar's case (supra), it is clear that action taken or orders issued by the 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. It is further clear that Courts have to be circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by bar of Article 329(b) of the Constitution 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 utilize the Court's indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. The Apex Court has observed that the Courts have to act with reluctance and should 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.
12. It is required to be noted that the aforesaid Page 15 of 20 HC-NIC Page 15 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER decision of the Apex Court has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli (supra). It has been held that a person whose name is not included in the voters' list, can take benefit of Rule 28 by filing Election Petition and that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable where powers are to be exercised in case of extraordinary or special circumstances such as where the order is ultravires or nullity or exfacie without jurisdiction. It is further held that exclusion or inclusion of names cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstances warranting interference of Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution and such question are to be decided in Election Petition filed under Rule 28 of the Rules.
13. It is a matter of record that the petitioner no.6firm gave the name of petitioner no.1, as its representative, when the preliminary voters' list was already published. Therefore, petitioner no.6firm had to submit an application to the Authorized Officer requesting to substitute the name of petitioner no.2 in place of petitioner no.1. The Authorized Officer verified the record and found that the name of petitioner no.2 was not reflected in the license issued by APMC Patan and therefore, did not accede to the request made by petitioner no.6firm.
14. Admittedly, the name of petitioner no.2 was added in the license, as a Partner of petitioner no.6firm, for the first time, only on 30.06.2017. However, Page 16 of 20 HC-NIC Page 16 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER before that date, i.e. on 12.06.2017, the final voters' list was published. Therefore, the learned single Judge ought not to have issued the impugned direction to substitute the name of petitioner no.2 in place of petitioner no.1 since the election process has already commenced.
15. Insofar as the decisions relied upon by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai are concernred, the facts were different. In the present case, the learned single Judge in Para8 has held that the Authorized Officer has not committed any error in not incorporating the name of petitioner no.2 in the preliminary, revised or final voters' list. It is further held that "it could also not be said that respondent no.3 had wrongly rejected the application of petitioner firm requesting him to substitute the name of petitioner no.2 in place of petitioner no.1". The above findings recorded by the learned single Judge have not been challenged by the original petitioners. Further, it would imply that the learned single Judge found no infirmity or impropriety with the order passed by the Authorized Officer on merits.
16. Having found no illegality with the order of the Authorized Officer, the learned single ought not to have issued the impugned direction since the direction to 'substitute' the name of petitioner no.2 in place of petitioner no.1, effectively, tantamounts to altering the voters' list after the election process has commenced. In the case of Daheda Group Seva Page 17 of 20 HC-NIC Page 17 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER Sahakari Mandli (supra), it has been held that any inclusion or exclusion of names from the voters' list could be made only under extraordinary or special circumstances, such as where the order is ultravires or nullity or exfacie without jurisdiction. In this case, as discussed herein above, the learned single Judge has found no infirmity or illegality with the order passed by the Authorized Officer. Under the circumstance, the learned single Judge ought not to have issued the direction to 'substitute' the name of petitioner no.2 in place of petitioner no.1, as there prevailed no extraordinary or special circumstance at the relevant time, warranting interference of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only ground under which the learned single Judge appears to have ordered substitution of the name of petitioner no.2, in place of petitioner no.1, is that petitioner no.1 has to go abroad. In our opinion, such ground cannot be said to be an "extraordinary" or "special circumstance" warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly, when the election process has already commenced. In view of the aforesaid factual aspects, none of the decisions relied upon by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai would be of any assistance to the original petitioners.
17. It is required to be noted that in pursuance of the directions issued by the learned single Judge, the Authorized Officer has substituted the name of petitioner no.2 in place of petitioner no.1 in the final voters' list; and now, the petitioner no.2 has Page 18 of 20 HC-NIC Page 18 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017 C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER also filed the nomination form. However, for the reasons recorded herein above, appropriate directions are required to be issued since the election, which was earlier scheduled on 26.07.2017, has been postponed to future date on account of the recent floods in northern areas of Gujarat, as per the joint statement made by learned counsel for the respective parties.
18. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the learned single Judge is quashed only to the extent of direction issued to the Authorized Officer to substitute the name of petitioner no.2 in place of petitioner no.1 in the final voters' list. Consequently, the name of petitioner no.2 stands deleted from the final voters' list as also from the list of valid nominations from the Trader's Constituency and the name of petitioner no.1 stands included in place of petitioner no.2. The petitioner no.1 shall be permitted to vote in the election and the Authorized Officer is directed to take further steps for holding the election in accordance with law. With the above directions, the appeal stands disposed of. Consequently, the Civil Application also stands disposed of.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY, CJ)
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)
Page 19 of 20
HC-NIC Page 19 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017
C/LPA/1249/2017 CAV ORDER
Pravin/*
Page 20 of 20
HC-NIC Page 20 of 20 Created On Tue Aug 22 00:02:58 IST 2017