Forna (Odha) Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited vs State of Gujarat and Others

K.A. Puj, J.—The Petitioner Society has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Authorized Officer and Co-operative Officer (Milk) in the office of the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Palanpur, Respondent No. 4 herein, and seeking further direction to the Respondent No. 4 to implead the names of members of Managing Committee of the Petitioner Society in the provisional voters list published on 07.01.2011 and final voters list published on 18.01.2011.

This Court has issued notice for final disposal on 07.02.2011.

It is the case of the Petitioner that notification dated 04.12.2010 was posted to the Petitioner Society and the same was delivered on 11.12.2010. Immediately after receipt of the said notification,the Petitioner submitted the names of the Managing Committee to the Respondent No. 4. However, the names were not included in the preliminary voters list published on 17.12.2010. The Authorized Officer thereafter issued notice on 17.12.2010 directing the Petitioner to offer its explanation and to remain present on 29.12.2010. The Petitioner complied with the said notice and produced all relevant documents vide its letter dated 27.12.2010, satisfying the Election Officer that the Society is dispensing agricultural credit and since the letter was received by the Society on 11.12.2010, it could not forward the names in time. Despite this fact, the Authorized Officer did not include the names in the provisional voters list published on 07.01.2011 on the ground that the information was not supplied before 11.12.2010. The Petitioner thereafter made a representation to the Authorized Officer for inclusion of the names of the Managing Committee in the final voters list. However, the said request was turned down and the impugned order was passed and the names of the Managing Committee of the Petitioner Society were not included in the final voters list published on 18.01.2011.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed by the Petitioner.

Mr. V. C. Vaghela, learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Authorized Officer is in violation of the provisions contained in Rule 8 of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market Rules, 1965. He has submitted that Rule 8 deals with Provisional and Final publication of lists of voters. It is specifically provided in the said Rule that any person whose name is not entered in the list of voters and who claims that his name should be entered therein or any person has been wrongly entered therein or has not been correctly entered, may, within fourteen days from the date of the publication of the notice, apply to the Authorized Officer for an amendment of the list of voters. Sub-rule 1 (A) of Rule 8 states that after receiving applications, if any, under Sub-rule (1), the revised draft list of voters shall be published by the Authorized Officer stating that any person who has objection against any new name entered in this list, may apply within 7 days from the date of publication of this notice to the Authorized Officer for an amendment in the draft of list of voters. Mr. Vaghela has, therefore, submitted that in complete violation of this Rule, the Authorized Officer has refused to include the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the Petitioner Society. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Respondent No. 4 may be directed to include the names.

Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the notification was sent by UPC from the Society on 04.12.2010 and no one has raised any grievance except the Petitioner. She has further submitted that in the case of Zandala Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. and Others Vs. B. Narsinhaman and Others, this Court has taken the view that no duty is cast on the authorized Officer by rules themselves to invite the concerned societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area to communicate to him the full names of the members of their managing committees so that he can prepare the list of voters wherein he can include their names. Moment the concerned societies come to know about the date of general election as fixed by Rule 4 and moment they come to know the date fixed by the Director as per Rule 7, for communication of the names of their managing committee members for inclusion in the voters list to be prepared by the authorized officer, it is for the concerned societies to move in the matter. They are not expected to wait for an invitation from the authorized officer to dispatch such names. This type of a statutory obligation on the part of the authorized officer cannot be culled out from the express language of Rule 7. She has, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order passed by the Authorized Officer.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the Authorized Officer is not sustainable in view of specific provisions contained in Rule 8 (1A) of the Rules. The judgment relied upon by learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Bhatt has no application to the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, it is prior to the amendment made in Rule 8 of the Rules. Rule 8 (1A) was inserted on the Statute book w.e.f. 17.06.1989. The said decision has, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case. Since the Authorized Officer has not included the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the Petitioner Society, as required under the provisions of Rule 8 as well as 8 (1A), he is hereby directed to include their names in the final voters list if they are otherwise qualified and eligible to vote.

With this direction and observation, this petition is accordingly disposed of.