Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Since in this group of Special Civil Applications common questions of law is involved, we intend to dispose them off by this common judgment.

2. By relying upon the provisions of law, especially Rule 28 of Gujarat Agricultural Market Produce Committee Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'), it is averred that inclusion or non-inclusion of the names of certain voters in the voters' list cannot be challenged in an election petition under rule 28 of the rules. The petitioners, to substantiate their submissions, placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench in the case of Mehsana District Coop. Purchase & Sales Union Ltd. v. Dhadhusan Beej Utpadak Rupantar and Vechan Karnari Sahkari Mandali Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1998 (1) GLH 170.

(i) Patan Proper Fal and Shak Bhaji Kharid Vechan Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Patan v. Pali Shak Bhaji and Fal Ful Adi Ugarnaraoni Kharid Vechan Shahkari Mandli Ltd. Mehsana, (1986 GLH 430).
(ii) Mehsana District Cooperative Sales and Purchase Union Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (1988 (2) GLR 1060)
(iii) Kanubhai Chhaganbhai Patel v. Director of Agricultural Marketing & Rural Finance, Gandhinagar and Ors. (2004 (3) GLR 2718).

4. In view of the conflicting judgments of the Division Benches of this Court wherein some of the Division Benches had taken a view that the inclusion or non-inclusion of the names in the voters' list cannot be made a ground in an election petition, while the other view is that preparation of the voters' list which includes deletion of the names in the voters' list being integral, the questions can be raised in an election petition under rule 28, the Division Bench felt that the matters need hearing by a larger Bench to settle all the disputes once and for all. Hence this group of petitions has been referred to us to answer the following questions:

9. Mr Pushpadatta Vyas, learned Counsel submitted that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not restricted and the Court can always interfere in a given case in a petition challenging illegal order.

10. Mr Kamal Trivedi, learned Addl.Advocate General for the respondents, by referring to Rule 6 and 28 of the rules, submitted that a person may be qualified to vote in an election - by virtue of his being a member of the Managing Committee of the particular cooperative society as per section 11(1) of the Act and not by virtue of the inclusion or deletion of his name in the voters' list. In his submission, inclusion or deletion of a name is only consequence of holding a capacity because if a person holds the post, his name should be included and if he ceases to hold the post on the date of election programme, then his name should be deleted, meaning thereby it is the holding of the capacity which is the relevant criterion and not the appearance of name in the voters' list which is only a consequence. He submitted that provisions of rule 28 are even otherwise independent of the provisions of rule 6 and are not, in any manner, controlled by Rule 6 and provide for remedy for resolution of all kind of election disputes. According to MR Trivedi, the aforesaid provisions of rule 6 and rule 28 are self-contained and are to be interpreted without taking any external aid of other legislations like Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 and the Representation of the People Act of 1950 or 1951. Finally he submitted that in view of the two earlier decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in the case of Patan F.& S.S.M. Ltd. v. Pali Shakbhaji S.M. Ltd. (1986 GLH 430) (supra) and Mehsana District Coop. Sales Union v. State of Gujarat (1988 (2) GLR 1060) (supra), another Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Mehsana District Cooperative Purchase & Sales Union v. Dhadhusan Beej Utpadak Rupantar and Vechan Karnari Sahkari Mandali Ltd. and Ors.(1998 (1) GLH 170) could have referred the matter to the larger Bench instead of taking altogether a contrary view.

23. In view of the aforesaid provisions, which in our opinion, are self-contained and are to be interpreted without taking any external aid from other legislations like Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 and the Representation of the People Act of 1950. We, therefore, see no merits in the submissions advanced by Mr Tushar Mehta.

24. As observed earlier, the Division Bench, in the case of Patan Proper Fal and Shak Bhaji Kharid Vechan Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Patan v. Pali Shak Bhaji and Fal Adi Ugarnaraoni Kharid Vechan Shahkari Mandli Ltd. Mehsana (1986 GLH 430) (supra) and in the case of Mehsana District Coop. Sales and Purchase Union Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat (1988 (2) GLR 1060 (supra), have clearly laid down that rule 28 is a provision of widest amplitude where the validity of election can be challenged on any ground and further since the question as to whether a particular person is a voter or not, or continues to be a voter, or is entitled to be included in the voters' list, or entitled to object to the inclusion of the names of some persons, who according to the objector, are ineligible for being included, are questions which are pre-eminently fit to be decided by the competent election authorities and further if the voters' list is prepared on extraneous considerations and not consistent with the requirements of the relevant rules, the forum created under Rule 28 of the rules would have jurisdiction and would be justified in looking into the same. We accordingly hold that the question that whether the voters' list is to be modified at the instance of some persons claiming to be voters or at the instance of persons objecting to the inclusion of the names of some persons in the voters' list is a matter relating to election. It is a right conferred under the Act for which remedy has been provided and therefore, this Court should not exercise its discretion in the matter. In our opinion, inclusion or exclusion of the names in the voters' list and all controversial matters as well as disputes arising out of the election including the right to vote or stand as a candidate should be postponed till after the elections are over so as to avoid impediment or hindrance in the election process. The Division Bench of this Court in the the case of Mehsana Dist.Coop.Purchase & Sales Union Ltd. v. Dhadhusan Beej Utpadak Rupantar and Vechan Karnari Sahkari Mandali Ltd. (1998 (1) GLH 170 (supra) could have referred the matter to the larger Bench especially in view of the earlier two decisions of two different Division Benches of this Court as stated above instead of taking a contrary view in the matter.