CHANDRAKANT MANIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred for appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order dated 11.6.2013 passed by the authorized officer for rejection of the objection of the petitioner for deletion of the names of 1164 persons, who have been granted licence for the first time in the meeting dated 1.5.2013 of the Karjan Market Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Market Committee") and it is prayed to direct respondents No. 3 and 4 to delete the names of 1164 voters from the voters' list of traders' constituency for Market Committee, who have been granted licence on 1.5.2013.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is the President of one Karjan Taluka Sales and Purchase Union Limited, holding the licence of the Market Committee and as per the Scheme of the Agricultural Produce Market Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with the Agricultural Produce Market Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), names of the office -bearers of the petitioner Society included in the voters' list of traders' constituency of the Market Committee. On 3.5.2013, the Director exercised the power under Rule 4 of the Rules and appointed respondent No.3 as the Election Officer and respondent No.4 as the authorized Officer for the election of the market committee and he also fixed various stages of election. On 14.5.2013, when the preliminary voters' list was published, it was found by the petitioner that there were 1658 persons included in the voters' list of traders' constituency as against about 300 to 400 persons holding licence and eligible to be included in the voters' list. The petitioner thereafter learnt that on 1.5.2013 the office -bearers of the Market Committee had granted fresh licences to about 1164 new traders and consequently the voters' list was inflated anticipating the election to be held immediately. The anticipation of the election is materialized by the exercise of power under Rule 4 for declaration of the process of election. It was learnt by the petitioner that en mass licences were granted and, therefore, he raised objection before the authorized officer. The authorized officer found that the licences were granted prior to the declaration of the process of election on 3.5.2013 and, therefore, rejected the objections. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) We have heard Mr.Vaghela, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Soni, learned AGP for respondents No.1 to 4, Mr.B.S. Patel, learned Counsel for respondent No.5, Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Sr. Counsel with Mr.Dipan Desai, learned Counsel for some of the respondents from respondent No.6 to 1162, who were served through public notice pursuant to the order passed by this Court. It may also be recorded that as per the order passed by this Court, on 21.6.2013, as the time was short and the election was to be held, service was effected through public notice and as stated by Mr.Desai, there are about 500 to 600 persons, who have responded to the notice and he is representing with Mr.Shalin Mehta for them.