Shree Jay Sardar Fruit And Vegetables ... vs State Of Gujarat on 2 January, 2019
The decision of this Court in the
case of B. B. Shroff (supra), relied by the petition, would
not be applicable to the facts of the case for the reason
that the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 operate in
different areas. In the said reported case, due to the
amendment of the by-laws, the area of operation was
extended wherein the petitioner society was operating
and the Court was of the view that it would be a
unhealthy competition. Therefore, the same would not
be applicable to the facts of the present case. Further,
the learned advocate for the petitioner is not able to
point out that as to how the business of grain would
adversely affect the right of the petitioner. Secondly, the
petition is not maintainable on the ground that the
nomination filed by the respondent No. 4 is not objected
by the petitioner before the Election Officer at the
relevant point of time. Further, Rule 6 of the Rules also
provides a notice to the member of the society and not to
Page 14 of 15
C/SCA/21180/2018 ORDER
any other society. Thirdly, the contention of the
petitioner that due to the amendment in by-laws, the
respondent No. 3 would be included in the Voters' List
and would entitle to nominate in the election of APMC,
Visavadar, is also not sustainable in view of the fact that
it is well decided that exclusion or inclusion in Voters' List
cannot be said to be an extra-ordinary circumstance
requiring interference of the High Court exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under
the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the
observations made by the respondent No. 1 in holding
that the appeal is not maintainable.