PANKAJBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr.B.S.Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.N.J.Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr.T.R.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4. Though respondent nos. 3,5 and 6 have been served by direct service, they have chosen not to appear before this Court.

(2.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioners on the ground that in two societies, namely Jitpur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Brahmanwada Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd., administrator was appointed and he forwarded the names of eight agriculturists who casted their votes in the election of market committee. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.B.S.Patel has urged that after the final voters list was published on 8.6.2010 with regard to election scheduled to be held on 22.7.2010 of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Modasa-respondent no.3, the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 22.7.2010 appointed administrator in Jitpur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Brahmanwada Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. When election took place, no one raised any objection with regard to membership and voting rights of Jitpur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Brahmanwada Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. After elections were over, an appeal was filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5 before Director under Rule 28 of Agriculture Produce Market Committee Rules, 1965 to the effect that since the administrator was appointed, the members of Jitpur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Brahmanwada Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. were not eligible to participate in the election. The Director has set aside the election of agriculturist constituency of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Modasa, the respondent no.3 on the ground that members of two co-operative societies, namely Jitpur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Brahmanwada Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. were not eligible to participate in the election as administrator had been appointed. Before the Director in Appeal No. 58 of 2010 filed by respondent no.4, grievance was raised against petitioners as well as against respondent no. 6. The grievance against respondent no.6 was that respondent no.6 was a licensee and therefore, he could not represent cause of agriculturists and therefore, election of respondent no.6 was illegal. The Director, by his order dated 30.11.2010 found that contention of respondent no.4 made against respondent no.6 was correct and he set aside the election of respondent no.6. The election of the petitioners was also set aside by the Director on the ground that since administrator was appointed, the member could not have casted their votes though prima facie it appears that after voters' list was finalised before the appointment of administrator, the agriculturists members of Jitpur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Brahmanwada Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. were eligible to caste their votes. But since the election of respondent no.6 has been set aside on the appeal of respondent no.4, and it has been held that agriculturists members of two societies were not eligible to participate, prima facie even though the question is debatable, but interest of justice demand that fresh election be held. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.