JASUBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL Vs. ELECTION OFFICER OF SABARKANTHA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, direction, order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.11.2014 (Annexure-A to the petition) by which the application of the petitioner for recounting of the votes/ballots has been rejected by the Election Officer of the Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited [hereinafter referred to "Milk Producers" Union].

(2.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the election of the members of the Managing Committee of the Milk Producers Union was conducted and held on 21-10-2014. That in all there were 16 candidates who contested the election and the petitioner contested the election from Constituency No.13. According to the petitioner the counting of the votes started at 7 a.m. on 22.10.2014 and it came to be concluded at about 11.00 p.m. in the night. According to the petitioner during the counting of the votes, the Election Officer had rejected as many as 130 votes which is against the provisions of the Act, Rules and bye-laws. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that out of 130 votes rejected by the Election Officer, 90 votes came to be rejected solely on the ground that the concerned voter has cast the vote in favour of less than 16 candidates. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as such as per the Act, Rules and bye-laws it provides for maximum votes to be cast but there is no such provision that if a voter has cast the vote in favour of lesser number of candidates, his ballot can be rejected. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time the petitioner did raise oral objection and requested for recount of the votes, however the Election Officer did not consider the same as officers wanted to go on Diwali leave. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that thereafter the Election Officer was on leave for the period from 23.10.2014 to 01.11.2014. Therefore, the petitioner thereafter sent the application dated 30.10.2014 to the Election Officer by RPAD post requesting for recount of all the votes more particularly the votes which came to be rejected and vide impugned communication dated 03.11.2014, the said request has been turned down. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application.

(3.) Shri V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that rejection of 90 votes out of 130 votes on the ground that the concerned voter has cast less number of votes [less than 16]. It is submitted that rejection of all those votes is absolutely illegal and more particularly contrary to Rule 56(d) of the Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1982 [hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1982"]. It is submitted that Rule 56(d) of the Rules, 1982 provides that the ballot paper can be rejected if the candidate has recorded on the ballot paper more votes than he is entitled to give. It is submitted that therefore rejection of approximately 90 votes out of 130 rejected votes is absolutely arbitrary and as such contrary to the provisions of the Rules, 1982.