KANUBHA GULABSINH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by the City Deputy Collector and Election Authority of Gujarat State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd (GUJKOMASOL), the respondent No.2 herein on 23rd June 2003 whereby the nomination of the petitioner No.1 for election of the GUJKOMASOL is rejected on the ground that the petitioner is convicted under sub -clause (b) of clause (1) of Section 145F of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by the Development Commissioner and thereby the petitioner No.1 is disqualified to contest the election of GUJKOMASOL.

(2.) IT is the case of petitioner that the petitioner No.1 is not even charged for the offence punishable under Section 153 -A or Section 171 -E or sub -section (2) or sub -section (3) of Section 505 of Indian Penal Code or Section 145 -R or Section 145 -S of the Act and hence the question of conviction of the petitioner No.1 under the said Section does not arise. It is further stated that the Development Commissioner is not the authority to convict any person of the criminal offence. It is the say of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is falsely implicated for the offence punishable under Section 188 and Section 430 of IPC and on the said allegations, the petitioner has been placed under suspension by the Development Commissioner in purported exercise of the powers under Section 71 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1973. It is further stated that the said suspension order is not vogue inasmuch as the writ petition preferred against the order of suspension has been admitted by the learned Single Judge and the order of suspension has been stayed. It is further stated that the said order has been challenged by the State by way of preferring an appeal and since the order of learned Single Judge was stayed, the petitioner No.1 preferred the application for vacating the stay under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and therefore ad -interim order granted by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA, was required to be heard within 15 days, but no action has been taken by the State for hearing of the appeal and therefore the order passed by the Division Bench is not in operation.

(3.) IT is in the above background of the matter, the impugned order is challenged by the petitioners in this petition by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.