AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhargav D. Karia, J
Heard learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela appearing for the petitioner through Video Conference.
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
"A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this Petition.
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction holding that the action of the Respondent No. 1 in not accepting the objection filed by the Petitioner is illegal and further be pleased to hold that the action of acceptance of the nomination paper of the Respondent No.3 by Respondent NO.1 is illegal and further be pleased to declare that Respondent No.3 is disqualified to contest the election of Respondent No.2 union and thereby declare the nomination form of Respondent No.3 as invalid nomination form.
C. Pending admission and final disposal of this Petition Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the Respondent No.3 from contesting the election of Respondent No.2 from Virpur constituency zone-12.
D. Any other and further relief/s that may be deem, just and proper may kindly granted in the interest of justice."
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is representative of Ghoravada Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. The petitioner is contesting election of respondent no.2- The Anand District C-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. as member of managing committee from Virpur constituency. Respondent no.3 is also contesting the election for the said post. The name of the petitioner has been included as a voter in the election of respondent no.2 for Virpur constituency
3.1) Respondent no.1 by notification dated 30th July, 2020 issued election programme of respondent no.2 as per which the nominations were to be filed between 6th August, 2020 to 13th August, 2020. The publication of list of candidates was on 13th August, 2020. The date of scrutiny of nomination form was 14th August, 2020 and the list of eligible candidates was to be published on 14th August, 2020 whereas date of withdrawal of nomination was 18th August, 2020. The date of final publication of contesting candidates was 18th August, 2020 and the election if necessary was to be held on 29th August, 2020 and the counting of votes and declaration of result was to be held on 31st August, 2020.
3.2) It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.3 who submitted nomination form for the ongoing election process from the Virpur constituency was not qualified to contest the election of respondent no.2 as per bye law no. 17.2.6 read with rule 32(1)(b) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965 since son of respondent no.3 Shri Shaktisinh Radhusinh Parmar is working with respondent no.2 Union.
3.3) The petitioner therefore, submitted written objection before respondent no.1 on 14th August, 2020 which was not accepted by respondent no.1 authority. It is the case of the petitioner that without considering the objections filed by the petitioner and without giving opportunity of hearing, the respondent no.1 published the list of eligible candidates on 14th August, 2020. Being aggrieved by such action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
Mr. V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that son of the respondent no.3 namely Shri Shaktisinh Raghusinh Parmar is working with the respondent no.2 and therefore, there is direct conflict of interest of the respondent no.3 with respondent no.2 Union and therefore, respondent No.3 is required to be disqualified to contest the election of respondent No.2 as per bye-law No.17.2.6 read with Rule 32(1)(b) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965. He further submitted that respondent no.1 did not accept the objections filed by the petitioner and did not give opportunity of hearing.
Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and having gone through the materials on record, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the issue in the petition is acceptance of the nomination form of respondent No.3 for the election of respondent No.2 union.
At this juncture it would be germane to refer to relevant provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and Elections to Committees Rules, 1982 as under:
Section 145U of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act,1961:
"145U. Disputes relating to elections to be submitted to the Tribunal. :-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 96 or any other provisions of this Act, any dispute relating to an election shall be referred to the Tribunal.
(2) Such reference may be made by an aggrieved party by presenting an election petition to the Tribunal:
Provided that no such petition shall be made till after the final result of the election is declared and where any such petition is made it shall not be admitted by the Tribunal unless it is made within two months from the date of such declaration:
Provided further that, the Tribunal may admit any petition after the expiry of that period, if the petitioner satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the petition within the said period.
(3) In exercising the functions conferred on it by or under this Chapter, the Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court in respect of-
(a) proof of facts by affidavit;
(b) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(c) compelling discovery or the production of documents, and
(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses. In the case of any such affidavit, an officer appointed by the Tribunal in this behalf may administer the oath to the deponent.
(4) Subject to any regulations made by the Tribunal in this behalf, any such petition shall be heard and disposed of by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible. An order made by the Tribunal on such petition shall be final and conclusive and shall not be called in question in any Court."
The aforesaid provision provides that any dispute relating to an election shall be referred to the Tribunal.
Further, Rule 74 of the Elections to Committees Rules, 1982 reads thus:
"74. Election petitions. - No election shall be called in question, except by an election petition presented to the Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of section 145-U and these rules."
Similarly, Rule 82 of the Elections to Committees Rules, 1982 provides for grounds for declaring election to be void and the same reads thus:
"82. Grounds for declaring election to be void. - If the Tribunal is of opinion:-
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under these rules; or
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his Election Agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his Election Agent; or
(c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected -
(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an agent other than his Election Agent; or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any Vote or the reception of any vote which is void; or
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or any rules made thereunder, the Tribunal shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void."
The aforesaid sub-clause (i) of clause (d) of Rule 82 of the Elections to Committees Rules, 1982 envisages one of the grounds for declaring election to be void viz. the result of the election, insofar as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination.
The sole grievance raised in the present petition is that respondent No.1 ought not to have accepted the nomination form of respondent No.3 inasmuch as respondent No.3 is not qualified for contesting the election of respondent No.2 union. Reading the provision of Section 145U of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, it categorically provides that any dispute relating to an election shall be referred to the Tribunal. Further, Rule 74 of the Elections to Committees Rules, 1982 contemplates that the election shall not be called in question in any court, except by an election petition presented to the Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of section 145U and the rules. Pertinently, Rule 82 of the Elections to Committees Rules, 1982 provides for the grounds for declaring election to be void and one of the grounds is of improper acceptance of any nomination materially affecting the result of the election. Thus, conjoint reading the provisions of Section 145U of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 read with Rule 74 and Rule 84(i)(d) of the Elections to Committees Rules, 1982, an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner by filing an election petition.
The learned advocate Mr. Vaghela for the petitioner in view of above provisions of law could not dispute availability of alternative remedy for redressal of the election disputes, and urged this Court to pass appropriate order.
Cumulative reading of the provisions of Section 145U of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, Rule 74 and Rule 84 of the Elections to Committees Rules, 1982, it is clear that an inbuilt mechanism is provided for redressal of the grievance relating to the election disputes including improper acceptance of the nomination form. In view of such alternative efficacious remedy in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition does not deserve to be entertained while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present petition is dismissed in limine.