AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohit S. Shah, J.—Rule. Mrs. V.S. Pathak, learned A.G.P. waives service of rule for the respondent.
In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, four Milk Producing Co-operative Societies - petitioner No. 1 in each of these four petitions have challenged separate but identical orders of the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar who is also the Election Officer for elections to the Board of Directors of the Gandhinagar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (popularly known as Gandhinagar dairy) which is a specified society under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The elections are governed by the Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Election Rules'').
When the respondent had invited names of nominees of the Milk Producers Co-operative Societies in the District, each of the petitioner societies had sent the names of its respective Chairman as on 31-3-2009. Thereafter, the elections had taken place to the Managing Committee of the petitioner-societies on 3-7-2009 or thereabout. At such elections, the previous Chairmen came to be replaced by other elected persons, and therefore, the petitioner-societies informed the respondent-Election Officer about such changes. The intimations to this effect were sent by the petitioner-societies on 23rd or 24th July, 2009. By the impugned order dated 24-7-2009 at Annexure ''A'' to each petition, the Election Officer has rejected the petitioners'' request on the ground that the petitioners had not lodged any objections against the final voters'' list published on 26-6-2009 and till publication of the election program on 20-7-2009.
In response to the notice, affidavits-in-reply have been filed by the Prant Officer and Election Officer. It is contended in the said affidavits that it was not open to the petitioners to change the names of their delegates after the last date for filing objections against the voters'' list which was 25-6-2009. It is also submitted that the election program was published on 20-7-2009, and therefore, also the request for permitting change of names could not be entertained.
Mr. Ravindra Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the matter is governed by the provisions of Rule 5 of the Election Rules and as per the said Rules, the society which had communicated the name of its delegate shall by like resolution be permitted to change the name of its delegate upto the sixth day before the date appointed by the Collector under Rule 16 for making nominations. The last date for making the nomination is 30-7-2009, and therefore, the petitioner-societies were required to be permitted to change the delegates upto 24-7-2009.
Mr. Ravindra Shah has further submitted that as per the bye-laws of Gandhinagar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. i.e. bye-law Nos. 19.1.1, 20.1 and 20.3, the Chairman of the affiliated societies are to be permitted to participate in the elections, and therefore, also the respondent was duty-bound to permit the petitioner societies to change their delegates because their Chairmen have changed.
Strong reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Pundlik Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,
On the other hand, Mrs. V.S. Pathak, learned A.G.P. has opposed the petition and submitted that since the voters list is published''s with the photographs of the nominees of the respective Milk Producers Co-operative Societies, there would be administrative difficulties if such requests for change of nominees are entertained after publication of the voters'' list.
Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, we find that the matter is governed by the provisions of Rule 5 of the Election Rules and not Rule 6 relied upon by the respondent-Elections'' Officer. While Rule 6 does contemplate publication of the provisional voters'' list, inviting objections thereto and consideration of objections and publication of the final voters'' list, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 specifically contemplates that where a society is a member of a specified society, the specified society shall call for the name of the delegate duly authorised to vote at an election on behalf of the affiliated society, so as to reach it within ten days next after the date of drawing up the accounts. The same rule further provides as under:
A society which has communicated the name of its delegate shall by like resolution be permitted to change the name of its delegates upto the sixth day before the date appointed by the Collector under Rule 16 of the said Rules for making nominations.
Rule 16 provides for drawing the Schedule for election and there is no dispute about the fact that as per the said election Schedule issued by the respondent-Election Officer, 30-7-2009 is the last date for filing nomination forms. Therefore, in view of the above statutory provision, 24-7-2009 was the last date by which affiliated societies would have to be permitted to change the names of their delegates.
In the facts of all the four cases, since the elections of Chairmen were held recently, there was justification for the concerned societies to change the names of their delegates within the permissible time-limit of 24-7-2009. In case of Pundlik v. State of Maharashtra (supra), a similar rule was under consideration and the Apex Court held as under:
In our opinion, the learned Counsel for the appellant is also right in submitting that if the order passed by respondent 2 is upheld, the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 will become nugatory and otiose. When the rule-making authority conferred power on the Sangh to change the name of its representative/delegate by expressly permitting the change of representative/delegate and intimating the said fact to the Collector, such right cannot be taken away or interfered with. Since, the last date as per the communication of respondent 2-the Collector was 10-6-2005, the action of the respondent-Sangh was within the four corners of Rule 5(2). The High Court, was therefore, in error in not allowing the petition and granting relief to the appellant.
In view of the above statutory provisions and the decision of the Apex Court in Pundlik v. State of Maharashtra (supra), we have no hesitation in allowing these petitions and in setting aside the impugned orders dated 24-7-2009 at Annexure-A in each petition. We further direct the respondent to accept the applications of the petitioner-societies for changing their delegates to participate in the elections to the Board of Directors to Gandhinagar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. scheduled on 13-8-2009 including their right to contest the elections in accordance with the relevant Election Rules.
Rule is made absolute in each petition in the above terms. The petitions stand disposed of accordingly in terms of the above directions.
Direct Service is permitted today.