MEHSANA DISTRICT CO OP PURCHASE AND SALES UNION LIMITED Vs. DHADHUSAN BEEJ UTPADAK RUPANTARE AND VECHAN KARMACHARI SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise from a common judgment whereby the learned single Judge allowed all the Special Civil Applications. The matters relate to election of the Mehsana Agricultural Produce Market Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Market Committee"). The petitioners, in Special Civil Application No. 8523 of 1997, are traders, who are carrying on their business in the market area of the Market Committee. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 8534 of 1997 and Special Civil Application No. 8536 of 1997 are Co-operative Societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and they are functioning within the area of the Market Committee. The Constitution of the Market Committee is as per S.11 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Market Act"). Under S.11(1)(ii), four members are to be elected from amongst themselves by the traders holding general licences and under S. 11(1)(iii), two representatives of the co-operative marketing societies situated in the market area and holding general licences, are to be elected from amongst the members of such societies by the members of the managing committees of such societies. The petitioners in these Special Civil Applications allege that though they were included in the preliminary voters' list and in the revised draft list, their names were omitted from the final voters' list and this according to these petitioners, amounts to violation of Rule 8 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Market Rules"). They had also contended that the removal of their names from the final voters' list was opposed to principles of natural and therefore, void. In Special Civil Application No. 8536 of 1997, it was alleged that the names of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 therein were wrongly included, as their names were included neither in the preliminary voters' list nor in the revised draft list. These petitioners sought direction to include their names in the voters' list and the learned single Judge was pleased to allow the prayer.

(2.) The appellants in the appeals, have seriously assailed the judgment of the learned single Judge on various grounds. They contended that the petitioners in the Special Civil Applications have got an effective alternative remedy under Rule 28 of Market Rules and as they have got alternative remedy, the learned single Judge was not justified in granting the relief sought for and they were not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The appellants also contend that the deletion of names of the petitioners from the final voters' list was in accordance with the Rules and there was no failure of natural . According to the appellants' Counsel, the learned single Judge should not have arrested the process of election when there was an alternative remedy for the petitioners.

(3.) We heard the learned Addl. Advocate General Shri S. N. Shelat for the Govt. and learned Advocate Shri B. S. Patel and learned Sr. Advocate Mr. K. G. Vakharia with learned Advocate Mr. Tushar Mehta for the appellants and Mr. Kalpesh Zaveri, learned Advocate for the respondents.