Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 172 (GUJ)

Patel Nil Vinodkumar v. State of Gujarat

2019-02-27

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Bela M. Trivedi, J. As all the petitions have been filed by the same petitioner, challenging the similar orders passed by the respondent authorised officer, they were heard together and this common order is being passed. 2. The petitioner claiming to be an agriculturist and member of the Managing Committee of Shri Unjha Kamaniyapura Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited has filed these three petitions, challenging the separate but similar orders passed by the respondent authorised officer on 15.2.2019 rejecting the objection applications of the petitioner raising objections against the respective respondent No.3 Societies, and further sought direction against the respondent authorised officer to delete the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the said Societies from the voters' list prepared for the agriculturist constituency of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Unjha (hereinafter referred to as "APMC, Unjha") 3. As per the case of the petitioner, he being a member of the Managing Committee of Shri Unjha Kamaniyapura Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, his name was entered as the voter in the voters' list prepared for agriculturist constituency for the election of APMC, Unjha. As per the election programme issued by the respondent No.1, Director, APMC, the provisional voters' list was to be published on 29.1.2019, the revised voters' list was to be published on 15.2.2019 and the final voters' list was to be published on 25.2.2019. The petitioner had raised the objections against the inclusion of the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.3 Societies in the voters' list published on 29.1.2019 on the ground that the said Societies were not the primary agricultural credit societies as they had not dispensed agricultural credit as per the three-tire credit structure as contemplated under Section 11(1)(i) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "APMC Act"). The said objections raised against the said respondent No.3 Societies were rejected by the authorised officer by passing the impugned orders. Hence, the petitioner has filed three separate petitions. 4. The said objections raised against the said respondent No.3 Societies were rejected by the authorised officer by passing the impugned orders. Hence, the petitioner has filed three separate petitions. 4. At the outset, it may be stated that when the learned Advocate Mr.C. P. Champaneri for the petitioner was making his submissions, the Court had specifically asked him about the locus standi of the petitioner to file the present petitions, and he had submitted that the name of the petitioner has been included as the voter in the voters' list of agriculturist constituency as he is the member of the Managing Committee of Shri Unjha Kamaniyapura Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, and therefore, he had right to raise objections before the respondent No.2 authorised officer under Rule 8 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules") in view of the decision of this Court in case of Jakhora Group Telibiya Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in,2018 JX(Guj) 495, and the said objections having been rejected by the respondent authorised officer, the petitioner had right to file the present petitions challenging the impugned orders. He further submitted that the respondent No.3 Societies registered in May/December 2018, had not dispensed the agricultural credit as per the three-tier credit structure and were not the primary agricultural credit societies. According to him, the respondent authorised officer had wrongly rejected the objections applications filed by the petitioner. 5. Learned Government Pleader Ms.Manisha L. Shah appearing on advance copy for the concerned respondent authorities, however, vehemently submitted that the petitioner had made wrong and misleading statements in the petition by stating that the name of the petitioner was included in the voters' list, he being the member of the Managing Committee of Shri Unjha Kamaniyapura Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, as the names of the said society and its members including the name of the petitioner were already deleted from the revised voters' list of the agriculturist constituency published as back as on 15.2.2019, and the final voters' list published on 25.2.2019. According to her, the petitions were affirmed on 23.2.2019 and presented in the Court on 26.2.2019, and therefore, the petitioner had deliberately made false statements on oath with a view to mislead the Court for his locus standi to file the present petitions. 6. According to her, the petitions were affirmed on 23.2.2019 and presented in the Court on 26.2.2019, and therefore, the petitioner had deliberately made false statements on oath with a view to mislead the Court for his locus standi to file the present petitions. 6. In view of the said submission made by the learned Government Pleader, the learned Advocate Mr.Champaneri had sought time to take proper instruction from the petitioner and the matter was kept in the second sitting. In the second sitting, Mr.Champaneri had conceded to the fact that the petitioner's name as member of the Managing Committee of Shri Unjha Kamaniyapura Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited was deleted from the revised voters' list of the agriculturist constituency published on 15.2.2019, and that the said fact was not disclosed in the petitions. 7. At the outset, it may be stated that the petitioner has not stated the correct facts, and on the contrary has made false and misleading statements in the petition to the effect that the name of the petitioner as the member of the Managing Committee of Shri Unjha Kamaniyapura Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited has been included in the voters' list prepared for the agriculturist constituency, by annexing only the provisional voters' list published on 29.1.2019, whereas his name including the names of other managing members of the Shri Unjha Kamaniyapura Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited were already deleted from the revised voters' list published on 15.2.2019 and the final voters' list published on 25.2.2019. The said Society had challenged the order of authorised officer deleting the names of its members by filing the petition being Special Civil Application No.4557 of 2019 through the present petitioner only on 11.2.2019, however, the said facts have been suppressed in the present petition by the petitioner only with a view to show his locus standi to file the present petition. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with cost on the ground of having stated incorrect facts and of suppressing material facts from the Court. 8. Since the name of the petitioner has already been deleted from the voters' list of agriculturist constituency, he could not be said to be the "aggrieved person" entitled to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported, (2013) 4 SCC 465 , in which it has been held as under:- "9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. 10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised." 9. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised." 9. So far as the merits of the petitions are concerned, it appears that the petitioner had raised the objections against the inclusion of the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.3 Societies, before the respondent authorised officer, however, had not remained present at the time of hearing and had also not produced any material to substantiate his objections against the respondent No.3 Societies. Under the circumstances, the respondent authorised officer had rejected the said objections vide the impugned orders. Even otherwise, as held by the Full Bench, in case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited Vs. R. D. Rohit, Authorized Officer and Co-operative Officer (Marketing) reported in,2006 GCD 211 (SCA No.2489 of 2005 dt. 27.4.2005) the exclusion or inclusion of the names in the voters' list cannot be termed as an extraordinary circumstance warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence also the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Since the Court has found that the petitioner has filed the petitions making incorrect and misleading statements and suppressing material facts from the Court, all the petitions deserve to be dismissed with cost. 11. Hence, all the three petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- each to be deposited in the Court within one week from today.