Gautambhai Devshankerbhai Dave vs State of Gujarat and Others

K.M. Thaker, J.—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.

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.

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

Mr. Jani, learned Government Pleader, has appeared for the respondent-State and submitted that the petition being premature is not maintainable and does not deserve to be entertained. He also submitted that the petitioner has not produced any material to demonstrate pendency of the civil suit or criminal complaint though some of such details are mentioned in the communication dated 12th November, 2009. The petition which does not contain the primary facts and is preferred even before submission of nomination, does not deserve to be entertained.

We have examined the petition and the communication dated 29th September, 2009 as well as the impugned letter dated 12th November, 2009. A glance at the correspondence and perusal of the averments in the petition clearly give out that the petition has been preferred on sheer apprehension. The election program has been declared, much after the letter dated 29.9.2009, under the notification dated 18.11.2009 as per which, the date for submission of nomination forms is 28th January, 2010 and the date for verification of nomination forms is 29th January, 2010. As of now, the petitioner has not even filed his nomination and yet he apprehends that possibly it might be rejected and that too, perhaps, on grounds not contemplated by the Act or the Rules.

A petition whose foundation is sheer apprehension is not maintainable and does not deserve to be entertained. As of now, there is no cause of action or justification for entertaining the petition. The petition being premature and without any cause of action not maintainable and hence, rejected.