Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(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:

Rule 28, which is relevant for our purpose, provides for Determination of validity of election whereby a person qualified to vote or to be elected at the election, may approach a Director or the State Government as the case may be within seven days after the date of the declaration of the result of the election to challenge the validity of the election.

13. Rule 28 has been interpreted by this court on many a times. It came up for consideration by way of Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble M/s. Justices B K Mehta and R J Shah, JJ 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). It was a case wherein the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioners' society were not included in the voters' list and, therefore, the petitioners' society moved the court for appropriate writ, orders or direction for enjoining the authorised officers to include names of the members of the Managing Committee in the voters' list as required under section 11(1)(iii) of the Act. The matter came up before the learned Single Judge, who disposed of the petition on merits with the consent of the parties. In para 6 of their judgment, the Division Bench has observed as under:

15. In the case of Mehsana District Cooperative Sales and Purchase Union Ltd. (supra) (1988 (2) GLR 1060) the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble M/s.Justices Ahmadi and D H Shukla, JJ. were posed with the question as to whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would be justified in arresting the election programme which has been set in motion by the issuance of an order under Rule 4 and 10 of the rules on the plea of omission of certain names from the lists of voters finalised by the Authorised Officer under rule 8 in view of the special forum and remedy provided by Rule 28 of the Rules ? The Division Bench, after considering various decisions including the decision rendered in the case of Patan Proper Fal and Shak Bhaji Kharid Vechan Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Patan (supra) (1986 GLH 430) held that according to Rule 28, if the validity is questioned after the declaration of the result, it has to be decided by the special forum created by the said Rules. That forum has the power to confirm or amend the declared result or set aside the election. Prima facie, therefore, the preparation of the lists of voters is a step in the direction of holding of elections so far as the scheme of the Rules is concerned.

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.