BHILALBHAI UKABHAI BOROD Vs. ELECTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the appellants that a notification for election of Directors of Amreli District Central Co-operative Bank was published by respondent No. 1 on 14-5-97. As per the said programme, nomination forms were to be filled in on or before 26-5-97 and scrutiny thereof was to take place on May 28, 1997. It appears that because of mob violence the nomination forms could not be filled in time. The said programme was, therefore, changed and rescheduled on May. 30, 1997. As per the changed programme, nomination forms were to be submitted on or before July 2, 1997 and scrutiny was to take place on July 3, 1997. It was stated in the notification that only those candidates would submit their nomination forms who had submitted such nomination forms earlier in pursuance of earlier election Notification published on May 14, 1997. A condition was also imposed that these nomination forms must be by the same proposer as well as by the same seconder. It is an undisputed fact that so far as present appellants are concerned, though the proposer was the same, the seconder was changed. In these circumstances the nomination forms submitted by the appellants came to be rejected. It appears that when scrutiny took place and final list was prepared, the nomination form of one Manubhai Kotadia respondent No. 4 herein representing Kubhda Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. was found to be in order and since he was the only candidate whose nomination form was in accordance with Rule 31 of Gujarat Specified Co-op. Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), he was declared as uncontested. In fact, by that time the election had not taken place, which took place on June 16, 1997. But in view of the fact that respondent No. 4 was the only candidate whose nomination form was found to be in order and was required to be declared, as successful candidate, he was declared elected.

(2.) xxx xxx xxx.

(3.) Mr. Patel learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned single Judge has committed ah error of law apparent on the face of the record in not entertaining petition on the ground that alternative remedy was available to them. He conceded that alternative remedy is available to the petitioners but in facts and circumstances of the case, the learned single Judge ought to have exercised powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. He submitted that it is not that High Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matters or that in no case it will exercise such powers. On the contrary there are cases in which this Court should exercise the extraordinary powers and grant relief with a view to decide the matter expeditiously so that persons who are not otherwise eligible and/or qualified do not hold public office. Mr. Patel has, in this connection, placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his case :