Gujarat High Court
Ishwarbhai Narayanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 25 November, 2019
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11822 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11824 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
ISHWARBHAI NARAYANBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MIHIR JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR DIPEN DESAI(2481) for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MS. MANISHA SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MS. JYOTI BHATT,
AGP (1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR. ARCHIT P JANI(7304) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 25/11/2019
CAV JUDGMENT
1 In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the orders under challenge are that of the Authorized Officer dated 04.07.2019, by which, the Authorized Officer Page 1 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT has rejected the objections of the petitioner and included the name of the respondent No.5-Societies in the voters' list for the purposes of election of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nizar.
2 For the purposes of convenience since the learned advocates have referred to the facts of Special Civil Application No.11822 of 2019, the same are briefly considered as under:
3. Facts in brief are as under.
3.1 The petitioners are agriculturists having their agricultural land in market area of APMC, Nizar. They are members of the Managing Committee of the Primary Agricultural Credit Society and are therefore, included in the Voters' list for the purposes of election of APMC, Nizar. 3.2 By virtue of an order passed in Special Civil Application No.8006 of 2019, an administrator was appointed and the process of elections was set into motion. According to the petitioners, the elections were long over due and ought to have been declared in early January as the term was expiring on 08.04.2019.
3.3 The respondent No.2-Director on 24.05.2019 declared Page 2 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT elections for APMC, Nizar. As per the election program so declared, every cooperative society dispensing agricultural credit was to communicate the names of the members to the Authorized Officer by 03.06.2019. The preliminary voters' list was published as per Rule 7(2) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules' for short) on 06.06.2019.
3.4 On the petitioners coming to know that the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the respondent no.5- society have been included in the voters' list, on 20.06.2019 objections were filed by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, since the societies had not taken any credit before the declaration of the election it could not have given agricultural loan to its members. In short, the objection was that the respondent no.5 was not a society dispensing agricultural credit and there were mere paper entries and therefore, they cannot be said to be Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies.
3.5 In the petition, in support of their submission that on the date when the preliminary voters' list was prepared i.e. on 06.06.2019, the society had not dispensed agricultural credit, a letter of Surat District Cooperative Bank dated 21.06.2019 Page 3 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT was produced, wherein, it was stated by the Bank that the loan has been disbursed only on 07.06.2019 i.e. after the date of preliminary voters' list.
3.6 The petitioners' case is that without deciding such objections, the Authorized Officer published a provisional voters' list on 23.06.2019 including the name of the respondent no.5 society. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.11114 of 2019. By an order dated 02.07.2019, the petition was disposed of with a direction that the respondent concerned shall decide the objection and pass an appropriate order on or before 04.07.2019. Accordingly, the impugned order has been passed.
4 Mr.Mihir Joshi learned Senior Counsel has appeared with Mr.Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the petitioners. He has invited my attention to the date on which the election program was announced that being 24.05.2019. The preliminary voters' list was to be published on 06.06.2019. The preliminary voters' list included the respondent no.5 society. Objections were filed by the petitioners on 20.06.2019.
Page 4 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT 4.1 Inviting my attention to page 30 of the petition, Mr.Joshi would submit that the objection filed on 20.06.2019 indicated that till the date when the provisional voters' list was published on 06.06.2019, the respondent no.5 society was not dispensing agricultural credit. He invited my attention to Section 11 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' for short). He submitted that as per clause-(i) of sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act, eight agriculturists shall be elected by the members of the Managing Committee of the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society, dispensing agricultural credit. Inviting my attention to Rule 7 of the Rules, Mr.Joshi would submit that on the date when the names are communicated, the society must be dispensing agricultural credit. Drawing my attention to Rule 8 of the Rules, Mr.Joshi submitted that any person who thinks that the name of some other person has been wrongly entered in a voters' list, such person needs to apply to the Authorized Officer. On such application, the Authorized Officer needs to decide the objections so filed.
4.2 Mr.Joshi submitted that in the facts of the present case, though the petitioner had filed objections on 20.06.2019, the Authorized Officer without deciding the objections on the Page 5 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT preliminary voters' list, published a provisional voters' list on 23.06.2019.
4.3 The petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.1144 of 2019. Inviting my attention to paras 3 and 4 of the order, Mr.Joshi would submit that the petitioners had expressed an apprehension that the respondent no.4 will manipulate the record. It was borne out that the Government Pleader had to tender an unconditional apology as the Authorized Officer had corrected the date of the order on the objections of the petitioner as if it was passed on 23.06.2019 instead of 27.06.2019. 4.4 Mr.Joshi, further submitted that hearing took place on 03.07.2019. The objector i.e. the petitioner and the respondent no.5-society were heard separately. The petitioner asked for a copy of the submissions made by the respondent no.5-society.
4.5 Mr.Joshi, invited my attention to the submission made on behalf of the respondent no.5 society by one Rajesh Mansung Padvi. His submission at page 69A was read. Reading such representation made on behalf of the respondent no.5, Mr.Joshi pointed out the relevant dates. According to him, the Page 6 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT meeting of the Managing Committee of the respondent no.5 society was held on 25.02.2019 where it was resolved to advance loan to farmers. Another resolution no.3 was passed to consider advancing loan to five marginal partners. Shakh Patraks were made ready on 18.03.2019 and sent to the Surat Bank. He further invited my attention to the fact that Shri Rajeshbhai Mansungbhai Pardi who had represented himself before the Authorized Officer as being the President, as a member on 25.02.2019 made an application for a short term loan of Rs.5330/- and on 28.02.2019, the bank had extended the loan. In terms of goods a rojmel was produced. According to the respondent therefore his name was rightly included in the voters' list.
4.6 Mr.Joshi drew my attention to the notification of the Surat Bank which says that the credit society was given the loan facility on 07.06.2019 and therefore the society in turn would have been able to dispense credit only after 06.06.2019, admittedly therefore, on the date when the elections were declared and even on the date when the preliminary voters' list was published i.e. on 06.06.2019, the respondent no.5 society was not dispensing agricultural credit.
Page 7 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT 4.7 He invited my attention to the journal entries by the representative of the respondent no.5 society at page 97 to show that on 28.02.2019, the opening balance of the society was Rs.404/-. The president Rajesh Mansing deposited Rs.4926/- on 28.02.2019. Drawing my attention to the debit side of the journal to submit that a bill of Rs.5330/- for purchase of fertilizer was submitted and that was taken to be as a loan extended, he submitted that the President himself had deposited his own money and took a loan in terms of fertilizer which certainly cannot be said to be dispensation of agricultural credit by the society. Admittedly therefore there was no dispensation of the agricultural credit before 06.06.2019.
4.8 Mr.Joshi invited my attention to the impugned order dated 04.07.2019, particularly page 22, wherein the Authorized Officer has advanced reasons for rejection of the petitioners' objection. He would submit that even as per the the Authorized Officer's reasonings of 18.03.2019, the Surat District Bank had sanctioned loans. That the member Rajeshbhai Mansing had applied for a short term loan on 25.02.2019 which the Managing Committee had approved and in lieu thereof, on 28.02.2019, the society from its' own funds had extended goods/fertilizers worth Rs.5330/- and therefore, Page 8 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT it is held that the society was dispensing agricultural credit in context of the letter of the bank dated 21.06.2019. Mr.Joshi would submit that there was no investigation necessary as even the Authorized Officer was of the opinion that the loans were only sanctioned and as a result of the ensuing Lok Sabha elections, the disbursement got delayed, but the Shakh Patraks were of 18.03.2019 and therefore, it can be said that the dispensation of agricultural credit was before 06.06.2019. Assailing these reasonings, Mr.Joshi would submit as under:
(a)That factually, no inquiry was necessary as even the Authorized Officer has opined that on the date when the preliminary voters' list was published, there was no dispensation of agricultural credit.
(b) The society was purely activated and the exercise of dispensing agriculture credit was a tailor-made activity for the purposes of election. The show of dispensing credit by illegal transfer by the president of his own funds was ex-
facie not a bona-fide transaction, for which, no inquiry was necessary. It was a brazen transfer of funds by the president himself which is not dispensing agricultural credit. It is a mere eye-wash.
(c) The objections were not considered and the provisional Page 9 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT list was prepared on 23.06.2019 without such consideration. The conduct of the respondent Authorized Officer was seriously in doubt as observed by this Court in its order dated 02.07.2019 with regard to interpolation of records.
(d) That the hearing took place separately. Pursuant to the orders, a final list was prepared on 05.07.2019, elections have been held on 20.08.2019. Pursuant to that interim order of this Court dated 02.08.2019, elections have been permitted to be held and the votes of the members of the respondent no.5-society have been kept in a sealed cover.
(e) As per Section 11 (1)(i) the requirement for being included in the voters' list for an primary agriculturist constituency is that the society must be dispensing agricultural credit in accordance with the three tier structure. Dispensing credit for its own funds was not dispensing credit in compliance with the three tier structure. Reliance was placed on the definition of " credit co-operative structure" under Section 2 (7-A) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. In support of his submission reliance was placed on the decision of this Page 10 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT Court in the case of Para Vistar Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., rendered in Special Civil Application No. 4050 of 2019 decided on 26.02.2019. Reliance was placed on para 6 of the said decision where the Court had considered the decision of Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat & ors., decided on 28.06.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 2128 of 2016. Reliance was also placed on a decision in the case of Shyam Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., decided on 17.03.2010 in Special Civil Application No. 3828 of 2016.
(f) When, according to Mr.Joshi, the order of the Authorised Officer is ex-facie without jurisdiction, according to the decision in the case of Dolatbhai Prabhubhai Dumaniya vs. The Director, Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance and ors., reported in (2013) 2 GLH 157, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable. Elections were overdue as the terms of the nominated body had expired on 03.04.2019. Elections ought to have been declared three months prior to expiry of the term i.e. in early January 2019. The respondent No.5 Page 11 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT Society was registered on 28.01.2019, the situation obviously tailor made to tinker with the election process and when read with the letter of the Surat Bank it becomes obvious not even necessitating an inquiry.
(g) The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vineshkumar Manojbhai Parmar vs. Dethali Vividh Sahakari Mandali Ltd., reported in (2017) 1 SCC 237 was not applicable post amendment to Section 11 after 10.04.2015.
5. Mr.Archit P. Jani, learned advocate, has appeared for the respondent No.5 and has drawn my attention to the relevant contents of the affidavit-in-reply and the additional affidavit together with the annexures and made the following submissions:
(a) The petition is not maintainable. There is an effective and alternative remedy to file an election petition under Rule 28 of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee Rules, 1965. Challenge to the exclusion / inclusion of names in voters list would be a subject matter of an election petition. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:
Page 12 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT
(1) Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar and others., reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216. (2) Manda Jagnath vs. K.S. Rathnam and others., reported in (2004) 7 SCC 492.
(3) Kanubhai Chhaganbhai Patel vs. Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance reported in 2004 (3) GLR 2718.
(4) Pundlik vs. State of Maharashtra and others., reported in (2005) 7 SCC 181.
(5) Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited vs. R.D.Rohit, Authorised Officer And Co Operative Officer (Marketing) reported in 2006 (1) GDC 211. (6) State of Uttar Pradesh and Another vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and others., reported in (2008) 12 SCC 675. (7) Shree Nani Marad Seva Sahakarimandlai Ltd., Thro Its Chairman vs. State of Gujarat., reported in 2011 JX (Guj) 1137.
(8) Shree Rajkot District Co-operative Bank Limited vs. State of Gujarat through Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation Department, reported in 2012 (1) GLR 670.
Page 13 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT
(b) Whether the District Bank, Surat, actually disbursed loan and the act of dispensing credit is a disputed question of fact and can be decided only by leading evidence.
(c) Taking me through the scheme of the APMC Act and the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1963, Mr.Jani would submit that the respondent No.5 society is a primary agricultural credit co-operative society dispensing agricultural credit. The Society can dispense credit through two modes. Self fund from its own reserves and through the District Co-operative Bank.
(d) The bank factually dispensed credit before the elections. Reliance was placed on the sanction letter dated 18.03.2019 and the agreement executed on 09.05.2019.
(e) Reliance placed by Shri Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, in the case of Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited (supra), does not take the view that the Society has to dispense credit through District Central Co-operative Bank only.
(f) The phrase "dispensing agricultural credit" is dealt Page 14 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT with in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vineshkumar Manojbhai Parmar (supra).
(g) The authorized officer has rightly rejected the objections. The petitioner has accepted the objections in case of Shelu Vibhag Sahakari Mandali Ltd., where the authorized officer allowed the objections of the petitioner and the Society which challenged such order, like the present respondent had to withdraw the petition in order to avail alternative remedy.
(h) The Society made application for registration in November, 2017. Delay was due to political reasons. It was earlier pending with the Vyara District Panchayat. Only after circular of the Co-operation Department, powers were restored to the District Registrar. It is not a tailor made dispensation of credit to facilitate inclusion in the voters list.
(I) Bias alleged against authorized officer is misconceived as a new authorized officer appointed. The same officer accepted the petitioner's objections for such Sahakari Mandali which shows that there was no bias.
Page 15 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT
(j) Society is not defunct. There are subsequent transactions. The registration of the Society is not challenged. Certificate of registration is conclusive proof.
6. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader, appeared for the State and made the following submissions:
(a) The petition is barred by availability of an effective alternative remedy by way of an election petition under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules, 1965. The Director, under Rule 28(3) has full powers to pass an order confirming or amending the declared result or setting aside an election.
(b) The allegation of bias is misconceived as a new Authorized Officer was appointed who passed the order after hearing the objections.
(c) The resolution of Society to process the loan application was on 25.02.2019. Loans were sanctioned on 18.03.2019.
It was approved by the resolution on 31.03.2019. Procedural requirement of registering the charge could not be completed and therefore the loans could not be disturbed unless secured. This delay was due to Lok Sabha Elections.
Page 16 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT
(d) The Society as rightly recorded by the Authorized Officer confirmed to the structure of the three tier structure dispensing agricultural credit.
(e) The Government Pleader also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vineshkumar Manojbhai Parmar (supra), especially para 27 thereof.
(f) Reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 569 of 2016 especially para 11 thereof. She placed reliance on the following decisions:
(1) Shaji K. Joseph vs. V. Viswanath and others., reported in (2016) 4 SCC 429.
(2) Shree Abhay Gopalak Vividh Karyakari Sahakari mandali Ltd., vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., rendered in Special Civil Application No. 2000 of 2016 & cognate matters decided on 15.03.2016. (3) Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat., reported in 2017 GLR (2) 902.
(4) Dolatbhai Prabhubhai Dumaniya vs. Director- Page 17 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT
Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance & Ors., rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1890 of 2013 on 12-13 .03. 2013.
(5) Rita Subhash vs. Election Officer., reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL SC 59979.
(6) Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., rendered in Special Civil Application No. 2128 of 2016 & cognate matters on 28.06.2016.
7. Certain facts need to be recapitulated in order to arrive at a decision on the submissions raised by the respective parties.
8. A nominated body was appointed to look after APMC, Nizar, for a period of two years. The term of the nominated body was to end on 03.04.2019. Since elections were due, a petition was filed directing the State to hold elections immediately. This Court on 08.05.2019 disposed of the petition on a statement being made that elections to the body shall be held within two weeks.
9. On 24.05.2019, the Director declared elections. A Page 18 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT preliminary voters' list was published on 06.06.2019, wherein, the name of the respondent No.5 Society was included. Objections were lodged by the petitioners on 20.06.2019. Without a decision on such objections a provisional list of voters maintaining the preliminary list was published. A petition being Special Civil Application No. 1114 of 2019 was filed by the petitioners since the objections were not considered. The Court disposed of the petitions on 02.07.2019 directing the State to decide the objections afresh and publish a fresh election programme. Based on the objections lodged by the petitioners a two-fold submission is made:
(a)The Society was registered on 28.01.2019, three months preceding election programme being announced purely with a view to prep up a Society to facilitate a voter.
Arrangement of showing dispensation of credit through transactions by the President was a brazen attempt to tinker with the election process showing society's dispensation of credit, which was in fact not in confirmity with the three-tier credit structure. The Surat Bank's letter dated 21.06.2019 apparently showed dispensation on 07.06.2019 i.e. after 06.06.2019, post declaration of election programme and even post publication of voters' list. Secondly, the surrounding circumstances in which the Page 19 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT authorized officer tampered with the date of order from 23.06.2019 to 27.06.2019 showed bias of the Authorized Officer and therefore all these circumstances made it apparent that no inquiry was necessary under Rule 8 and therefore it was an extraordinary circumstance warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy by way of an election petition under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules, 1965.
(b) Let us assess the decision impugned dated 04.07.2019. Appreciating the chain of events the Authorized Officer found that the Society passed a resolution in the general body resolving to process loan application of ten farmers. As per the letter dated 18.03.2019, the Surat District Co-operative Bank sanctioned loan to an amount of Rs.12,10,000/- to five medium farmers and Rs.7,02,000/- to five marginal farmers. Agreement was signed on 09.05.2019. The Mamlatdar was requested to record a charge. Since the Lok Sabha elections were announced, the charge was recorded subsequently. There was hence a delay in disbursement.
(c)Can such an eventuality be branded as a brazen attempt Page 20 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT to create records of dispensing credit to make a show to get itself included in the voters' list from such voters' constituency of agriculturists? Does this amount to tinkering with the sanctity of of the election process? Is this done with a view to gain eligibility to be entitled to vote?
(d) The background of the respondent No.5 Societies indicate that, as far as Khodda Society is concerned, registration was pending since 2017. It was registered ultimately on 28.01.2019. To suggest that it was so done keeping an election forthcoming three months is a circumstance too far fetched to hold against the Society. It cannot be said that the registration was done with a purpose of influencing the elections. The registration of the Society in January 2019 was never challenged.
10. On record are copies of the resolutions dated 25.02.2019, agreement / Shaak Patrak dated 18.03.2019 and 09.05.2019 respectively. One of the conditions of the agreement indicate that the loan amounts will be disbursed once the security interest of the bank is taken care of. Therefore if the letter dated 21.06.2019 is read in that context, the mere formality of disbursement of cheques was done after mortgage was recorded. This was a procedural Page 21 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT formality completed. There is therefore disbursement on 07.06.2019 and certainly cannot go against the respondent No.5 Society to hold such an act as creation of a show of disbursing credit / dispensing credit after 06.06.2019 to disqualify it from being in the voters' list only on this count. Subsequent transactions also show that the Society is not defunct. Reliance placed on the decision in the case of Dolatbhai Prabhubhai Dumaniya (supra), cannot help the petitioner. In this case the Authorized Officer after considering the fact that the Society had resolved on 25.02.2019 and in view of the letter dated 18.03.2019, found the objections of the petitioner unsustainable. The Society was held to be one dispensing agricultural credit in consonance with the three tier system. In consonance with the provisions of Section 11 (1)(i) of the APMC Act and Rule 8 of the APMC Rules if the authorized officer on an inquiry, albeit not a detailed one found that the respondent No.5 Society was a primary agricultural credit society and that it is involved in dispensation of agricultural credit, to go behind and examine the issue on appreciation of evidence would amount to delving into disputed questions of fact, which is not open for a writ court to do under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The circumstances of the present case are not so extraordinary Page 22 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT that the petitioner cannot avail of the effective remedy under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules.
11. With regard to the President himself depositing an amount on 25.02.2019 and taking a loan of fertilizer as a single circumstance may not be a sole guiding factor weighing against the Society. The Rojmal Entry and its transactions and its veracity is not best opined for or against and is best left for the parties to lead evidence before the competent election tribunal.
12. With regard to attributing bias to the authorized officer in context of the observations made by this Court in its order dated 02.07.2019, the state Government gave a fresh hearing and another Authorized Officer passed an order. That he upheld the petitioner's objection vis-a-viz Shelu Sahakari Mandali would also suggest that the apprehension of bias is unfounded.
13. I am in agreement with the submissions of Mr.Archit Jani, learned advocate for respondent and Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, the learned Government Pleader, that merely because disbursement happened on 07.06.2019 it cannot be said that the situation was tailor made to prep up a voter. The exercise cannot be branded as one to tinker with the election Page 23 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019 C/SCA/11822/2019 CAV JUDGMENT process. With regard to Mr.Joshi's submission on the Society not dispensing credit in compliance of the three tier credit structure, the case of Vineshkumar (supra) though deals with a pre-amendment definition deals specifically with the term " dispensing agriculture credit" and as held it is only descriptive of the purpose for which the societies are established. It cannot be therefore said that the Authorized Officer, in rejecting the objections of the petitioner, acted without jurisdiction as the order is ex-facie arbitrary or wholly unjust to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners can avail of an effective remedy under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules, 1965.
14. The petitions are dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) Bimal FURTHER ORDER Interim relief granted vide order dated 02.08.2019 is extended up to 29.11.2019 on a request made by Mr.Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the petitioners, to which Ms.Manisha Shah, learned Government Pleader, has objections.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) Bimal Page 24 of 24 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 25 21:36:26 IST 2019