KANUBHAI MANIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 9/10/2014 passed by the respondent No.3 Deputy Collector and Election Officer, Sabarkantha District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, by which the respondent No.3 has rejected the nomination of the petitioner while exercising powers under Rule 23 of the Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1982" for short) and to direct the respondent No.3 to accept the nomination of the petitioner and to include the name of the petitioner in the list of valid candidate.

(2.) THAT the respondent No.4 Bank is a Specified Society, specified under section 74(C) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). That vide notification dated 18/9/2013, the respondent No.3 Deputy Collector and Election Officer has declared election programme for the election of the Members of the Board of Directors of the Specified Society. That the election of the specified society is required to be conducted as per the provisions of the Rules, 1982 framed under the provisions of the Act. That section 145(F) of the Act provides for disqualification to become Members of the Board of Directors of the Specified Society.

(3.) MR .Dhaval Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the Returning Officer / Election officer rejecting the nomination of the petitioner in exercise of the power under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1982 is absolutely illegal and beyond the scope and ambit of the inquiry contemplated under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1982. It is submitted that it is an admitted position that the name of the petitioner was included in the provisional list of voters as well as in the final list of voters and therefore, considering Rule 18 of the Rules, 1982, he was eligible to contest the election of the Member of the Board of Directors of the Specified Society. It is submitted that admittedly no objections were raised by anybody at the time when the name of the petitioner was included in the provisional list of voter and/or final list of voter as delegate of Primary Society. It is submitted that while holding inquiry under Rule 23 i.e. at the stage of scrutiny of the nomination, the Returning Officer / Election Officer has no authority to consider whether a candidate is disqualified to become Member of the Primary Society or not. It is submitted that on bear reading of Rule 23(2) at the time of scrutiny of the Nomination, Returning Officer / Election Officer is required to consider the objections and/or hold inquiry to the extent whether a candidate is disqualified to become Member / Director of the Specified Society or not, as per the Act, Rules and Bye -laws of the Specified Society, for the post for which he filled in the nomination form. In support of his above submission, he has heavily relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13/10/2014 in the case of Kanubhai Manibhai Patel Versus State of Gujarat and others, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 14199 of 2014.