Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The Authorized Officer however, contrary to well settled legal position continues the name of the respondent No.5 society in the voters list.

13. Therefore, right from the inception, the intention is clear to just help the respondent No.5-society.

14. As regards the contention of the respondents that the petitions are not maintainable and the petitioners be relegated to prefer election petition and the reliance placed by the respondents on judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Daheda Credit Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited reported in 2006(1) GCD 2011, it is submitted that the same judgment provides for exception that orders of the election officer are open to judicial review if the order is ultra vires or nullity or ex-facie without jurisdiction. In the present case, as can be seen from the facts narrated hereinabove the order of the Authorized Officer is ex-facie without jurisdiction as he has no authority or competence to include names of societies who had acquired eligibility after the declaration of election.

Full bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Daheda Grou Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. V. Authorised officer reported in 2006 1 GDC 211 (para-33) has held that petition under Article226 would not be maintainable in case of inclusion or exclusion of voters unless the order passed by the authorised officer is (i) ultra vires, (ii) nullity and/or (iii) without jurisdiction. The order impugned by the authorised officer can not said to be without jurisdiction, as sought to be submitted by the C/LPA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/11/2021 appellant, in view of Rule8 of APMC rules-1965.

67 In the year 2005, another Division Bench, in view of sharp conflict in different judgments, opined that the matters needed hearing by a Larger Bench to settle all the disputes once and for all. An order therefor was made on 17.3.2005 in the Special Civil Application Nos.2489 to 2496 of 2005. The matters so referred were decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited v. R. D. Rohit, Authorized Officer & Co.operative Officer (Marketing) [2006 (1) GCD 211 (FB)]. After extensive reference to the relevant provisions and the precedents, the Full Bench declared the legal position in the following terms:

11 to 15 members of the managing committee of one co- operative society get included in the list of voters. In the matter of elections to APMC, Junagadh itself we have found that controversies have been raised about the eligibility or otherwise of members of the managing committee of as many as eight co- operative societies."

11. Going strictly by the rules of precedents, stare decisis and judicial discipline, the legal issue of maintainability of the petitions is squarely covered by clear propositions laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. (supra). Although the power and discretion vested Court by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution in the High could not be taken away by any judgment, clear guideline is provided for the exercise thereof specifically in the cases of exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list of an APMC. It is laid down in no uncertain terms by the Full Bench that exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstance warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and such questions are to be decided in an election petition under Rule 28 of the Rules. It is also categorically laid down that the authorities under Rule 28 have wide powers to cancel, confirm and amend the election and to direct holding of fresh election and hence the remedy under Rule 28 is an efficacious remedy. Therefore, it is practically impossible and not open for this Court to take a view different from the aforesaid propositions of law."