Gujarat High Court
Deodar Taluka Co-Op. Purchase & Sales ... vs Election Officer & 3 on 7 July, 2015
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel, Rajesh H.Shukla
C/SCA/10574/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10574 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10580 of 2015
==========================================================
DEODAR TALUKA CO-OP. PURCHASE & SALES UNION LD.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
ELECTION OFFICER & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VC VAGHELA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAKESH PATEL, AGP, for the Respondent(s) No. 3
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 07/07/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) In both the petitions, the only question to be considered is the hearing not given by the Election Officer to the concerned petitioners before excluding their name from the voters list on the ground that the petitioners were defaulters and as per the bye-laws their names were required to be excluded from the voters list.
2. We may record that it is an undisputed position that initially the name of the petitioners were included in the provisional voters list at the ensuing election of Banaskantha District Co-operative Purchase & Sales Union Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society'). The hearing was given by the Election Officer vide notice dated 1.6.2015 on the ground Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/10574/2015 ORDER whether the name of the delegate/representative of the society should be changed or not. Thereafter, on 22.6.2015, the order has been passed by the Election Officer observing that the name of the delegate could be changed by another resolution of the respective member co-operative society, but as the member co-operative societies were defaulter, the names were not to be included in the final voters list. Under the circumstances, the present petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Vaghela, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGP for the State and its authorities.
4. It is an undisputed position that no hearing has been given on the ground of defaulter for not including the name of the respective petitioner societies in the final voters list. Had it been a case where the name of the respective petitioner societies were not included in the provisional voters list, the matter might stand on a different footing and on different consideration, but in a case where the names are already included in the provisional voters list and if their names were to be excluded and/or were not to be maintained in the final voters list, an opportunity of hearing was required to be given. If hearing has not been given and the order is passed on the ground, it would result into breach of principles of natural justice and the order to that extent cannot stand in the eye of law.
5. Mr. Patel, learned AGP, contended that since in the list of defaulters the names of the respective petitioner member co-operative societies were shown, the decision was taken. Whereas, Mr. Vaghela, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioner societies submitted that they were not the cases of any loan transaction entered into by the petitioner society with the Sangh and the transactions were pertaining to purchase of goods and in any case such could not have been considered Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/10574/2015 ORDER by the Election Officer without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner concerned.
6. Mr. Patel, learned AGP, submits that if this court finds that the hearing was required to be given, the Election Officer is ready to give an opportunity of hearing and thereafter will pass a fresh order, whether to maintain the name of the petitioner societies in the final voters list or to exclude the names of the respective petitioner societies in the final voters list. However, he submitted that the formal notice may not be ordered by this court. Mr. Vaghela, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners would be ready to remain present for making submissions for maintaining the names in the final voters list before the Election officer as may be ordered by this court.
7. Hence, the following order:
(1) The petitioners or their authorized representative shall remain present tomorrow at 1.00 p.m. before the Election Officer and they shall make submissions as to why their names should be maintained in the final voters list and should not be excluded from the final voters list.
(2) The Election Officer shall consider the material before him and pass appropriate order on or before 13.7.2015 and the copy of the order shall be collected by the petitioners from the Election Officer on 13.7.2015.
(3) It is observed that the rights of the petitioners and the process of election shall stand governed by the final order which may be passed by the Election Officer for maintaining the names of the petitioner societies in the final voters list or for exclusion of their names in the final voters list as may be decided by the Electioneer.
Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/10574/2015 ORDER(4) The aforesaid order shall be passed by the Election Officer independently without being influenced by the observations in the earlier order that the petitioners were defaulters and suffice it to observe that he will be at liberty to take independent view of the matter on the basis of the material available before him and in accordance with law.
8. The petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs.
9. The learned counsel for both the sides shall convey the order to their respective clients and officers.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) (RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) (hn) Page 4 of 4