Gujarat High Court
M/S Vasuki Kirana Store vs State Of Gujarat on 11 July, 2018
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
C/SCA/8653/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8653 of 2018
==========================================================
M/S VASUKI KIRANA STORE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the PETITIONER(s) No.1 to 18
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP (1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
MR DIPEN DESAI(2481) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 5,6
MR RUTUL P DESAI(6498) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 7
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Date : 11/07/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners, by the present petition, have challenged the order dated 3.6.2018 passed by the respondent No.4 Authorized Officer, deleting the names of the petitioners from the voters' list of the traders' constituency for the election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhari (hereinafter referred to as "APMC, Dhari").
2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners are the residents of the respective villages of Taluka Dhari falling in the market area of APMC, Dhari. The petitioners are having licences issued by APMC, Dhari for the purpose of doing business of Page 1 of 7 C/SCA/8653/2018 ORDER agriculture produces in the market area. The said licences have been renewed from time to time and lastly as per the Resolution passed in the meeting of APMC, Dhari held on 25.4.2018. It is further case of the petitioners that the election of APMC, Dhari was declared by the respondent No.2 Director, Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gandhinagar on 24.6.2018 and the respondent No.4 was appointed as the Authorized Officer for holding the said election. The respondent No.4 had published the provisional voters' list under Rule 7(2) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 had raised objections against the inclusion of the names of the petitioners along with others in the said provisional voters' list. Pursuant to the said objections, the respondent No.4 Authorized Officer had called upon the petitioners and others to remain present before him on 29.5.2018. The Authorized Officer had also called upon the Secretary, APMC, Dhari to furnish the details of the business done by the petitioners and others against whom the objections were raised. Accordingly, the Secretary, APMC, Dhari had submitted the details on 25.5.2018. According to the petitioners, though the Secretary, APMC, Dhari had submitted the certificates as regards the trading done by the petitioners and others, the Authorized Officer ignored the said certificates and held Page 2 of 7 C/SCA/8653/2018 ORDER that the petitioners and others had not traded in conformity with the terms of the licences and directed to delete the names of the petitioners and others from the voters' list vide the impugned order. The petitioners, therefore, have filed the present petition.
3. The petition has been resisted by the respondent No.4 Authorized Officer by filing affidavit-in- reply contending inter alia that some of the petitioners had not remained present before him though they were called upon to remain present at the time of hearing, and therefore, had not produced any material to show that they had traded in the previous financial year. The other petitioners had failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that they had carried out trading activities in consonance with the licences. Hence their names were excluded from the voters' list. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 have also filed affidavits-in-reply in support of the order passed by the respondent No.4 Authorized Officer. The Secretary, respondent No.7 APMC, Dhari has filed his reply, stating inter alia that the market yard at Dhari was closed since last more than three years, because the State Government was purchasing the agricultural produces at the Minimum Support Price (MSP), and therefore, farmers used to go to the Government agencies, which purchased all items at MSP. It has been stated that the traders are paying the market cess at the end of Page 3 of 7 C/SCA/8653/2018 ORDER every financial year, ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- and in view of minimal business, no traders maintain sales and purchase or kabala registers, and that no traders had produced any sales and purchase registers before the Market Committee. It has been further stated that the Chart at Schedule-1 produced before the Authorized Officer was prepared by him as per the record available with the Market Committee. The respondent No.4 Authorized Officer has filed further-affidavit-in-reply to the said reply filed by the respondent No.7 APMC, Dhari.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.B. T. Rao appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that though the Secretary, APMC, Dhari had specifically stated before the respondent No.4 that the petitioners had paid the market cess and had traded during the previous financial year, the Authorized Officer had not considered the said certificate on the ground that the petitioners had failed to produce the relevant documents in support of the said certificate issued by the Secretary, APMC, Dhari. He also submitted that the market yard at Dhari having been closed, the petitioners were doing small trading activities, for which no records were being maintained, nonetheless it could not be said that the petitioners had not traded in conformity with the terms of their licences.
5. However, the learned AGP Mr.Tirthraj Pandya Page 4 of 7 C/SCA/8653/2018 ORDER appearing for the respondent No.4 submitted that two petitioners i.e. Vijaykumar Jivrajbhai Dave and Yunusbhai Allarakhbhai Juneja had not appeared before the respondent No.4 during the course of hearing and had not produced any documents to show that they had traded in the previous year. According to him, the other petitioners had also failed to produce any bills or vouchers in support of their contention that they had traded during the previous financial year in conformity with their licences. Hence, the petitioners being not eligible to be included in the voters' list as per Section 11(1)(ii) of the said Act, their names were excluded from the voters' list.
6. Learned Advocate Mr.Rutul Desai for the respondent No.7 has submitted that none of the traders used to produce any registers or records and used to pay lump sum market cess at the end of the financial year and accordingly, the details were submitted before the respondent Authorized Officer.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and to the documents on record, it appears that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 had raised objections against 46 persons, whose names were included in the provisional voters' list by the respondent No.4 Authorized Officer. The Authorized Officer had issued notices to all the said 46 persons, Page 5 of 7 C/SCA/8653/2018 ORDER for giving them opportunity to explain as to why their names should not be excluded from the voters' list. However, some traders had not paid the market cess, and some had not remained present before the respondent No.4 Authorized Officer, and therefore, their names were excluded from the voters' list. The said traders have not even challenged any proceedings or the order of the respondent No.4. So far as the petitioners are concerned, out of the 18 petitioners, Vijaykumar Jivrajbhai Dave and Yunusbhai Allarakhbhai Juneja had admittedly not remained present before the respondent No.4 during the course of hearing and had not produced any documents. So far as the other petitioners are concerned, admittedly the said petitioners though had appeared before the respondent No.4, had failed to produce any documents like bills or vouchers to show that they had traded in the previous financial year in conformity with the terms of their licences as contemplated in Section 11(1)(ii) of the said Act. The respondent No.7 Secretary, APMC, Dhari has also stated in its affidavit that the traders were not maintaining the registers or documents and that they used to pay market cess on lump sum basis at the end of the financial year, ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/-.
8. The submission made by the learned Advocate Mr.Rao for the petitioners that when none had produced any documents the Authorized Officer Page 6 of 7 C/SCA/8653/2018 ORDER should have excluded the names of all the traders, can not be accepted. Since the objections were raised against the petitioners and others, the respondent No.4 was required to deal with cases of only those traders and was not required to take any decision in respect of other traders against whom no objections were raised. Even during the course of hearing of this petition, the learned Advocate Mr.Rao had failed to show as to how the petitioners had traded in conformity with the terms and conditions of their licences in the previous financial year so as to include their names in the final voters' list.
9. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 Authorized Officer. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J) V.V.P. PODUVAL Page 7 of 7