THEBAJUTH KETHIWADI V V KA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD Vs. DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AND RURAL FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The petitioning society has questioned the legality of the order of Respondent No.2 as an Authorised Officer of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jamnagar dated 16/2/2005, whereby, the objection raised by the petitioning society against the inclusion and request for deletion came to be rejected giving reasons and relying on Section 11 (1) Clause III and the bye-laws, by invocation of provisions of Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The only contention, which has been advanced by learned Counsel Mr.Joshi for the petitioning society is that, the inclusion of the names of the representatives of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the Agricultural Constituency of the final voters list published on 10/2/2005 for the purpose of holding election of the Agricultural Produce Market, Jamnagar is not legal and valid. In support of his contention, he has also placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Narpatsinh Harisinh Vansiya vs. Authorised Officer and Co. Op. Officer (Marketing) in Special Civil Application No.1634 of 2004.

(3.) After having considered the submissions raised before us and the principles and ratio propounded in the said decision in Narpatsinh Harisinh Vansiya's case (supra) in the background of the entire factual profile emerging from the record of this petition, as well as, the general principle that ordinarily Court should not stop or prevent the election process once it has commenced, as there is always a remedy for the aggrieved parties by resorting to election petition before the appropriate authority or Court. In our opinion, this matter, where the said decision relied on by the learned Counsel Mr.Joshi will not be squarely applicable. Again the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are plenary, prerogative, discretionary and equitable, and more so, in a nature of petition like one on hand, ordinarily should not be exercised. We are convinced, that there is no fit and proper case for invocation of such powers for interference on the stated argument. Therefore, the petition deserves only and only one fate of rejection at the outset. Accordingly, petition shall stand rejected at the threshold. Notice discharged. No costs.