Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.78 seconds)Section 74B in The Gujarat Co-Operative Societies Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Gujarat University Act, 1949
Mehsana Taluka Co-Operative Purchase ... vs The Director on 15 November, 2016
... ... " (Para 15)
6.8 In Mehsana Taluka Co-operative Purchase &
Sales Union (supra), it was stated,
"5.1.2 The election jurisprudence, its
principles and the applicability of election laws
have different delineations and dimensions. They
indeed operate, and has to be allowed to operate
in their own way so as to sub-serve a higher
purpose. In the election which is a democratic
process, what is fundamental is the event of
election. Neither the right to vote or to
participate in election as voter or as a
contesting candidate, is perceived to be a
fundamental right. They are the rights guarded by
statutory framework and could be exercised only
in the manner the statute may provide. What is at
stake is the interest of whole body which goes to
the democratic process of elections. Election
jurisprudence hardly emphasise rights of
individuals. Election rights are the democratic
rights operating as a whole and for collective
end."
Kanjibhai Babaldas Patel vs Election Officer Of A.P.M.C., Visnagar on 10 March, 2000
The Court, after considering its
earlier decisions in Kanjibhai Babaldas Patel v.
Election Officer, APMC Visnagar [42 (1) GLR 260],
Mehsana District Sales & Purchase Union v. State of
Gujarat [1988 (2) GLR 1060], observed to hold that,
"any interference after the scrutiny of nominations
would create a real possibility of the election
process being interrupted, obstructed or delayed.
This is why in the aforesaid four decisions of the
Division Bench of this Court it has been laid down
Page 14 of 17
Downloaded on : Wed Sep 08 03:32:32 IST 2021
C/SCA/9458/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021
that Rule 28 provides an efficacious remedy and when
the election process is started, Court would refuse
to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.".
Reiterating the principle, the Court refused to go
into the nature of dispute, that is the objections
raised against the validity of nominations and did
not examine whether Rule is violated to find out
whether the Scrutiny Officer had committed any error
in rejecting or accepting the nomination.
Mehsana District Co-Operative Sales ... vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 21 December, 1987
The Court, after considering its
earlier decisions in Kanjibhai Babaldas Patel v.
Election Officer, APMC Visnagar [42 (1) GLR 260],
Mehsana District Sales & Purchase Union v. State of
Gujarat [1988 (2) GLR 1060], observed to hold that,
"any interference after the scrutiny of nominations
would create a real possibility of the election
process being interrupted, obstructed or delayed.
This is why in the aforesaid four decisions of the
Division Bench of this Court it has been laid down
Page 14 of 17
Downloaded on : Wed Sep 08 03:32:32 IST 2021
C/SCA/9458/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021
that Rule 28 provides an efficacious remedy and when
the election process is started, Court would refuse
to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.".
Reiterating the principle, the Court refused to go
into the nature of dispute, that is the objections
raised against the validity of nominations and did
not examine whether Rule is violated to find out
whether the Scrutiny Officer had committed any error
in rejecting or accepting the nomination.
Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 25 September, 2001
6.6 In Shri Sant Sagduru Janardan Swami
(Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v.
State of Maharashtra [(2001) 8 SCC 509], the Apex
Court in the context of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 read with Maharashtra Specified
Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules,
1971 stated and held,
"In view of our finding that preparation of the
electoral roll being an intermediate stage in the
process of election of the Managing Committee of
a specified society and the election process
having been set in motion, it is well settled
that the High Court should not stay the
continuation of the election process even though
there may be some alleged illegality or breach of
rules while preparing the electoral roll. It is
not disputed that the election in question has
already been held and the result thereof has been
stayed by an order of this Court, and once the
result of the election is declared, it would be
open to the appellants to challenge the election
of the returned candidate. If aggrieved, by means
of an election petition before the Election
Tribunal." (Para 12)
6.7 The proposition of law about non-
Kanubhai Chhaganbhai Patel vs Director Of Agricultural Marketng And ... on 10 September, 2004
4.4 Learned Government Pleader defended the
decision of rejecting the nomination papers even
otherwise to submit that the nomination form of none
of the petitioner was duly completed in terms of Rule
18(2) read with Rule 19(1) and 19(3) of the Rules,
taking the Court through the said Rules. She further
submitted that in any case the inquiry to be
conducted by the election officer at the stage of
examining the nomination papers was summary inquiry.
For this proposition, she relied on decision of this
Court in Kanubhai Chhaganbhai Patel v. Director of
Agricultural Marketing & Rural Finance [2004 (3) GLR
2718], more particularly para-6.2 and 7 thereof, as
well as another decision in Arvindbhai Singabhai
Gamit v. Election Officer & Deputy Collector [2012
(3) GLH 81], more particularly relying on paras-6 and
7 thereof. It was stated that 11 seats to be filled
in amongst member primary credit societies, 22
nominations have been received. It was submitted by
producing one of the nomination papers that all were
in order and other contesting candidates have put
their signature at all places as may be required
including below the Ekrarnama, however nomination
papers of the petitioners were incomplete as rightly
recorded by the election officer and that they were
liable to be rejected.