Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. I say and submit that the present petition is not maintainable on the ground of having alternative efficacious remedy under Rule 28 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965.
6. I say and submit that the group of petitions have been referred to the Larger Bench of this Hon'ble Court, which was decided vide the judgement dated 27.07.2005 rendered in case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandali Vs. R D Rohit, reported in 2006 1 GCD 211. The Larger Bench was called upon to answer three questions viz. (I) Whether a person whose name is not included in the voters' list can avail provisions of the Rules by filing Election Petition? (II) Whether C/SCA/7776/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2022 the remedy under Rule 28 can be termed to be efficacious remedy and (III) Whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable in an election process challenging an order issued by the Election Officers i.e. inclusion or deletion of the names of the voters in the voters' list?.

6. Heard Mr. B. M. Mangukiya, the learned advocate appearing for the writ-applicant, Mr. Ishan Joshi, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent - State and Mr. Tushar Sheth, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.5 to 9.

Position of Law :-

7. The law as regards judicial review in the matters pertaining to election is well settled.

(a) The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited vs. R. D. Rohit, Authorised Officer and Cooperative Officer (Marketing), reported in 2006 C/SCA/7776/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2022 (1) GCD 211 held that the inclusion or exclusion of name in the voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 reads thus :-