ZANDALA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED Vs. B NARSINHAMAN DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE MARKETING AND RURAL FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition two cooperative societies through their respective Chairmen have challenged the general elections to agricultural produce market committee Varahi distBkantha from agriculturists constituency as contemplated by sec. 11(1)(i) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners it is necessary to note a few relevant facts leading to the present petition The petitioners claim to be Seva Sahkari Mandalis falling under the category of cooperative societies dispensing agricultural credit in the Varahi market area in Santalpur taluka of Banaskantha district. The petitioners are duly registered under the Provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act 1961 Respondent No. 4 herein is agricultural produce market committee duty registered under the said Act. It is also required to function as per the statutory provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder which are named and styled as the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The term of the fourth respondent was to expire in 1980. As per sec. 10(1) of the Act every market committee shall be a body corporate by such name as the Director may specify by a notification in the official gazette. As the term of the 4th respondent was coming to a close general elections were required to be held as provided by sec. 15 of the Act. The petitioners societies claim to be entitled to vote at the said general elections to 4th respondent from the agriculturists constituency as provided by sec 11(1)(i) of the Act which lays down that Every market committee shall consist of the following members namely (i) eight agriculturists who shall be elected by members of managing committees of cooperative societies (other than coope rative marketing societies) dispensing agricultural credit in the market area. According to the petitioners as they were cooperative societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area of the 4th respondent they were entitled to vote at the ensuing general elections for electing 8 agriculturists from that constituency to be members of the proposed newly constituted market committee. According to the petitioners formerly general elections of 4th respondent were to be held somewhere in beginning months of 1980 but thereafter the said elections were postponed. The Director of Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance Gujarat State respondent No. 1 herein subsequently fixed fresh date of general elections to respondent No. 4 committee and the said date was fixed as on 15-2-1981 and for that purpose time table laying down the various stages leading to the general elections was duly published by the first respondent. The contention of the petitioners is that as per the provisions of the relevant election rules the authorised officer had to inform the concerned voters like the petitioners to communicate full names of the members of their managing committees with the place of residence of each member to the authorised officer so that he can prepare provisional voters list. According to the petitioners the authorised officer who is present respondent No. 3 did not inform the petitioners about the last date by which they were to send details of names of their managing committee members as required by rule 7(1) of the rules with the result that the petitioners were deprived of the opportunity to send this information to the authorised officer and as a corollary thereof names of the managing committee members of the petitioner societies did not get included in the provisional voters list or for that matter in final voters list as prepared of by the authorised officer under the provisions of the relevant rules. Consequently the members of the managing committees of the petitioner societies were deprived of their right of franchise which otherwise they would have exercised as voters for electing 3 agriculturists from the agriculturists constituency as laid down by sec. 11(1) (i) of the Act. The petitioners further state that the date for filling up nomination forms was fixed by the Director as 1-2-1981 while the date of scrutiny of the forms was fixed on 3-2-1981. The last dated for withdrawal of nomination forms was fixed as 6-2-1981. That by that time various agriculturists in the taluka who could have contested could not fill up their nomination forms as per the aforesaid time schedule as on the date fixed for filling up the nomination forms that is on 1-2-1981 elections were held in Santalpur taluka for electing members to the Taluka Panchayat and District Panchayat. The result was that for 8 seats of agriculturists only 8 candidates effectively offered their nomination forms and in any case on 6-2-1981 which was the last date for withdrawal of nomination forms only 8 agriculturists remained in the field contesting for 8 seats. Therefore there was no contest and all these 8 candidates who are present respondents Nos. 5 to 12 were declared elected uncontested as per the provisions of rule 18(2) of the rules from the agriculturists constituency. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

(3.) Miss K. M. Shah learned Advocate for the petitioners raised following contentions in support of the petition.