GAUTAMBHAI DEVSHANKERBHAI DAVE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE premise of present petition is sheer apprehension. The foundation on which the petition is based is a communication dated 29th September, 2009 which the petitioner addressed to the respondent No. 2 on apprehension that his nomination, as and when filed, for contesting the election, might be rejected on the ground of pendency of civil suit and/or criminal complaint which, according to the petitioner, are not permissible grounds for rejecting any nomination as per applicable provisions under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act, 1963 and the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) MR. B. S. Patel has appeared for the petitioner and submitted that during the last election the nominations were rejected on the ground of pendency of civil suit and criminal complaint. In view of such facts, the petitioner, being a member of the opposite party, was apprehensive that in the ensuing election also similar practice may be adopted and the nomination may be rejected. In view of such apprehension the petitioner made a representation vide a letter dated 29th September, 2009 to the respondent No. 2 and requested him to issue, in advance, necessary instructions to the concerned election officers to not to reject nomination forms on the ground of pendency of civil suit and/or criminal complaint. He submitted that the letter was submitted on 13th October, 2009, however, there was no response for almost one month and then the petitioner received a communication dated 12th November, 2009 which neither accepts nor rejects the petitioner's representation. The petitioner is, therefore, aggrieved by such communication, which in his view, is vague. Hence, present petition.

(3.) MR. Patel referred to the provisions under the Act and the Rules and also relied upon the judgments in Kanubhai Chhaganbhai patel V/s. Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gandhinagar and Ors. [2003 (3) GLR 2718] and in Kanjibhai Babaldas Patel V/s. Election Officer of A. P. M. C. , Visnagar [2001 (1) GLR 259]. On reading the judgment, it becomes clear that in the facts and circumstances of present case, both judgments are not applicable.