RAMESHBHAI GANESHBHAI CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions are stated to be involving common issues and hence they are heard together for final disposal at the request of learned counsel. SCA No.13689 of 2009 was decided on 29/1/2010 by another Division Bench of this Court but, upon that decision being carried in appeal, the Supreme Court has remanded the matters by order dated 03.6.2010 in Civil Appeal No.1706 of 2010 with the direction as under:

(2.) In SCA No.13689 of 2009, the petitioner is an agriculturist operating in the market area of respondent No.5, Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Sidhpur and has challenged as illegal the inclusion of respondents No.5 to 23 societies in the provisional voters' list published on 17.12.2009 for election of the committee. According to him, against inclusion of the names of respondents No.5 to 23 societies in the preliminary voters' list, he had submitted his objections but their names appeared in the final voters' list published on 29.12.2009 and hence, he approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The objections of the petitioner were decided and rejected by the impugned order dated 17.12.2009 of authorised officer. The main objection of the petitioner, which is the bone of contention all throughout, was that the aforesaid respondent co-operative societies were, by their very name and objectives, dealing with the activities of animal husbandry and milk produce, and hence could not be included in the constituency for "agriculturist" members of the APMC. The main contentions of the respondents herein were confined to the submissions that those co-operative societies were in fact as well dispensing agricultural credit in the market area and the petitioner ought to have been relegated to the alternative appropriate remedy of raising an election dispute under Rule 28 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (for short, "the Rules"), even as the election process had already commenced at the relevant time.

(3.) Before embarking upon the analysis and discussion related to the main and major issue required to be resolved, it would be appropriate to address the preliminary issue of maintainability of the petitions despite availability of alternative remedy. There is little doubt and no serious controversy about the fact that the co-operative societies concerned have, as one of their objects and actual activities of dispensing agricultural credit, the factual aspect whereof is already ascertained by the authorised officer. It could also not be gainsaid that, after the above directions of the Apex Court, the election process has to commence anew and hence it cannot be contended that this Court may not intervene while the process of election is underway. Prima facie, the decision on the aforesaid main and major legal issue goes to the root of election process and may in any case be required to be finally decided by this Court. "It was, however, argued on behalf of the respondents that there was no exceptional circumstance or extraordinary requirement to justify interference by this Court by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, when alternative remedy was available to the petitioner. Full Bench decision of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. vs. R.D.Rohit, Authorised Officer & Co-Operative officer (Marketing) [2006 (1) GCD 211] was relied upon for the following propositions laid down therein: