[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] [ACT]: HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE[ENTITY]sd/ and HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE[ENTITY]sd/ 1 WhetherReportersofLocalPapersmaybeallowedtosee NO thejudgment? 2 TobereferredtotheReporterornot? NO 3 WhethertheirLordshipswishtoseethefaircopyofthe NO judgment? 4 Whetherthiscaseinvolvesasubstantialquestionoflawas NO to the interpretation of the [ACT] or any ordermadethereunder? M/[ENTITY] Petitioner(s) Versus [ENTITY] Respondent(s) Appearance: [ENTITY],ADVOCATEforthePetitioner(s)No.130 [ENTITY],ADVOCATEforthePetitioner(s)No.130 MR.UTKARSHSHARMAASST.GOVERNMENTPLEADERfortheRespondent(s) No.13 [ENTITY],ADVOCATEfortheRespondent(s)No.45 CORAM:HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE[ENTITY] and HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE[ENTITY] Date:15/05/2017 CAVJUDGMENT
(PER:HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE[ENTITY]) [1.0] RULE. Shri [ENTITY], learned Assistant Government PleaderwaivesserviceofnoticeofRuleonbehalfofrespondent Nos.1to3[ENTITY],learnedAdvocatewaivesservice of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 (newly addedparties).
[ACT] Page 1 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, presentpetitionistakenupforfinalhearingtoday.
[2.0] BywayofthispetitionunderArticle226ofthe[ACT] ofIndiapetitionershaveprayedforanappropriatewrit,direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.04.2017 passed by the Authorized Officer rejecting the representations of the petitioners against noninclusion of their namesinthePreliminaryVotersListfortheTradersConstituencyin theelectionofAPMC,Kalavad(hereinafterreferredtoas"Market Committee")andconsequentlytodirecttheAuthorizedOfficerto includetheirnamesinthefinalvoterslistofTradersConstituency fortheelectionofMarketCommittee.
[3.0] At the outset it is required to be noted that as inclusion and/ornoninclusionofthenamesofthepetitionersinthevoters listofTradersConstituencyisoninterpretationoftheearlierorders passedbytheDivisionBenchofthisCourtinLettersPatentAppeal No.462/2014and/orhasdirectbearingontheearlierdecisionof the Division Bench of this Court in [CASE NUMBER] theDivisionBencheitherforclarificationand/orforanappropriate order on merits and that is how after obtaining the order from Hon'bleTheChiefJustice,thepresentpetitionisplacedbeforethis Court.
[4.0] Thatthecasehasacheckeredhistoryrightfrom2011.Facts [ACT] Page 2 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 leadingtothepresentpetitioninnutshellareasunder:
[4.1] ThatthetermoftheelectedbodyoftheMarketCommittee had expired on 24.06.2011. That the then Chairman of Market CommitteepreferredpetitionbeforethisCourtbeingSpecialCivil Application No.2872/2011,seekingprayer to extendtheterm of the Market Committee under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as "[ACT]"). That this Court vide order dated 13.07.2011directedtheStateGovernmenttodecidethecaseofthe extensionofthetermoftheMarketCommitteeinaccordancewith theprovisionsoflaw.TheStateGovernmentinsteadofextending thetermoftheMarketCommittee,appointedAdministratortotake chargeoftheMarketCommitteetilltheelectionsareheld.Thatthe then Chairman of the Market Committee, preferred [CASE NUMBER] CivilApplicationNo.9019/2011cametobepreferredchallenging theactionoftheGovernmentinappointingtheAdministratorand not extending the term of the Market Committee. The Division BenchofthisCourtdisposedofthesaidSpecialCivilApplication videorderdated30.08.2011directingtheGovernmenttoholdthe electionoftheMarketCommitteewithin3months.Itappearsthat asdespitetheorderdated30.08.2011passedbytheDivisionBench ofthisCourtinSpecialCivilApplicationNo.9704/2011directing the State to hold the election within a period of 3 months, no election was held within the time granted by this Court and therefore, the original petitioners of [CASE NUMBER] [ACT] Page 3 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 ofthisCourtbeingMiscellaneousCivilApplicationNo.2403/2011 making agrievance with respect tononcompliance of the order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in [CASE NUMBER]. One another grievance which was raised before the Division Bench was that certain societiesareregisteredafter30.08.2011andthepublicationofthe electionprogramme wasdelayedordifferedinordertoseethat officebearersofsuchsociety/societiescanbeincludedasvotersin theconcernedconstituency attheensuingelection.Astatement was made on behalf of the State that those societies which are registeredafter 30.08.2011shall notbe treated aseligible to be included in the voters list and consequently their officer bearers will not be included in the voters list and all the necessary instructionswillbeforwardedtotheAuthorizedOfficerwhoisto preparethevoterslist.Accordingtotheabovestatementandthe statementthatelectionprogrammeshallbedeclaredforthwith,the Division Bench by order dated 23.09.2011 disposed of the said contemptpetition.
At this stage it is required to be noted that one another grievancewasalsoraisedbeforetheDivisionBenchinrespectof certaintradersand/orMarketingCooperativeSocieties.Tothatthe DivisionBenchdidnotexpressanyopinionleavingittotheparties toresort toappropriate proceedings ifsuch additional rights are conferredorthereisanydeprivationoftherights.
[4.2] ThatthereaftertheStateGovernmentdeclaredtheelection programmeon19.09.2011.TheAuthorizedOfficerpublishedthe electionPreliminaryVotersListon05.10.2011.Whilepreparingthe [ACT] Page 4 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 PreliminaryVotersList,theAuthorizedOfficerdidnotincludethe names of certain societies in the voters list of the agriculturist constituency.Therefore, thosesocietiesapproachedthisCourtby wayof filing [CASE NUMBER] and other alliedspecialcivilapplications.Thatbyjudgmentandorderdated 09.12.2011 the Division Bench of this Court allowed the said special civil applications and directed the Authorized Officer to includethenamesofthemembersoftheManagingCommitteeof thesaidsocietiesinthevoterslistforagriculturistconstituency.
[4.3] It appears that feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 09.12.2011 passed by the Division [CASE NUMBER] other allied special civil applications, the State and others approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide interim order dated 15.12.2011 stayed the entire election. It appears that thereafter the Market Committee (Administrator) preferred [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER] for permittingtheMarketCommitteetorenew/grantthelicenseto the traders of the Market Committee. However, by order dated 10.05.2012 the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said applicationbyobservingthatthesamewasnotthedisputebefore [CASE NUMBER], for the dispute which was not there, the Court cannot pass any orderintheapplication.ThatthereaftertheAdministratorwasin processofgrantofnewlicensesfortheAY201213andtherefore, vide order dated 02.06.2012, the Inspector of the Market [ACT] Page 5 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 Committee was asked to make scrutiny in respect of the applications made for licenses and to submit his report. At that stagetheExChairmanoftheMarketCommitteewhowasalsothe petitioner of [CASE NUMBER] approached this Court and by way of another petition being [CASE NUMBER] part of the Administrator of the Market Committee in initiating processofgrantofnewlicensesfortheyear201213andtoquash andsetasidetheorderdated02.06.2012bywhichtheInspector, Market Committee was askedtomake scrutinyin respect of the applicationsmadeforlicensesandtosubmithisreport.Thesaid petitioneralsoprayedtoissueawritofprohibitionrestrainingthe Administratorfromtakinganypolicydecisioninthemanagement andaffairsoftheMarketCommittee.ThatthelearnedSingleJudge of this Court vide his judgment and order dated 12.08.2013 dismissedthesaidspecialcivilapplication,howeverrecordingthe statement on oath of the Administrator and so stated in the affidavit in reply in the said special civil application that the issuanceofnewlicensesorrenewalofthelicenseswillnotmake theconcernedlicenseholdersentitledtobetreatedasvotersforthe electionintheMarketCommitteeforwhichtheCourthasdirected to hold the election. A statement wasalso made by the learned AdvocateappearingonbehalfoftheAdministratorthatprovision shallbemadebywayofincorporatingconditioninthelicenseitself thatnewlicensesshallnotbetreatedasvotersforelectioninthe ensuingelection.
[4.4] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and [ACT] Page 6 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 order dated 12.08.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in [CASE NUMBER], the original petitioner - ExChairman of the Market Committee preferred Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division BenchofthisCourtvideorderdated05.12.2014dismissedthesaid Letters Patent Appeal considering the observations made by the learned Single Judge recording the statement on oath of the Administratorthatnewlicenseholdershallnotbetreatedasvoters fortheensuingelectionsandthatifanylicensesareissuedafter 30.08.2011,inthatcase,specificconditionshallbeincorporatedin thelicenseitselfthatthosenewlicenseholdershallnotbetreated asvotersfortheensuingelection.
[4.5] That thereafter the [ACT] came to be amended more particularlysection11ofthe[ACT]cametobeamendedby whichtheeligibilitycriteriaforbecomingthevotersasagriculturist inagriculturistconstituencyandforbecomingvoterintheTraders' Constituencycametobeamended(theaforesaidshallbedealtwith andconsideredhereinafter).
[4.6] It appears that therefore in viewofthe amendment in the [ACT],whichcameintoeffectwitheffectfrom10.04.2015,the election which wasstayedbytheHon'ble Supreme Courtearlier videorderdated15.12.2011,wasrequiredtobeholdasperthe amended[ACT]andtherefore,theStatewithdrewtheSpecial LeavePetitions/SpecialLeavetoAppealwhichwerefiledagainst thejudgmentandorderdated09.12.2011passedbytheDivision [CASE NUMBER] [ACT] Page 7 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 otheralliedspecialcivilapplications. ItappearsthattheHon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.01.2016 dismissed the said Special Leave Petitions preferred by the State as not pressed, recordingthestatementofthelearnedCounselfortheStatethat the petitions are not pressed in view of the intervening developments leading to the amendment of the legislation and since the election is to be conducted in terms of the amended provision. By the said order the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed other Special Leave Petitions which were preferred againstthejudgmentandorderpassedbytheDivisionBenchof this Court dated 09.12.2011 in [CASE NUMBER] private parties) by observing that as now the State proposes to conduct the election in light of the amended provision, it is not necessarytogointothemeritofthecasesandtherefore,dismissed theSpecialLeavePetitionsleavingthequestionoflawopen.
[4.7] That it appears that thereafter the State initiated the proceedingsforholdingtheelectionoftheMarketCommittee.That afreshelectionprogrammecametobepublishedforholdingthe electionoftheMarketCommitteeaspertheamended[ACT]on 14.03.2017.Thatthereforeassuchdenovo/freshelectionprocess wascommencedbytheStatetoholdtheelection oftheMarket Committeeaspertheamended[ACT].Thatinthenotification dated14.03.2017theState/Directordeterminedthecutoffdate for sending the list of voters to the Authorized Officer as on 24.03.2017 and also appointed the Authorized Officer for the purpose of finalization of the voters list. That thereafter the [ACT] Page 8 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 Authorized Officer published the Preliminary Voters List on 30.03.2017.However,inthesaidPreliminaryVotersListofTraders Constituencythoughtherespectivepetitionershereinwereholding the Traders licenses, their names are not included by the Authorized Officer considering the earlier orders passed by this Court more particularly the order 05.12.2014 passed by the DivisionBenchofthisCourtin[CASE NUMBER] that those traders who are issued / granted the licenses after 30.08.2011,shallnotbeentitledtobeconsideredasvotersinthe Traders' Constituency in the ensuing election, the Authorized Officer has not included the names of the petitioners in the Preliminary Voters List in the Traders' Constituency. That the respective petitioners raised the objections against the non inclusionoftheirnamesinthePreliminaryVotersListofTraders' Constituency by objections dated 11.04.2017 / 15.04.2017. That the Authorized Officer has rejected the representations of the petitionersquotingpara16ofthejudgmentandorderpassedby this Court in [CASE NUMBER] as well as [CASE NUMBER].
[4.8] Hence,thepetitionershavepreferredthepresentSpecialCivil Applicationfortheaforesaidreliefs.
[5.0] PresentSpecialCivilApplicationcameupforhearingbefore thelearnedSingleJudgeon04.05.2017.ThelearnedSingleJudge wasoftheopinionthattheorderpassedbythisCourtin[CASE NUMBER] and the order passed by the DivisionBenchofthisCourtin[CASE NUMBER] [ACT] Page 9 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 would have a direct bearing on the question with respect to inclusionand/ornoninclusionofthenamesofthepetitionersin the voters list of the Traders' Constituency and therefore, the learnedSingleJudgebyorderdated04.05.2017hasreferredthe mattertotheDivisionBenchandasoneofuswasapartytothe orderpassedin[CASE NUMBER]pursuanttothe orderpassedbyHon'bleTheChiefJusticepresentpetitionisplaced beforeus.
[6.0] We have heard Shri [ENTITY], learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Shri [ENTITY], learnedAssistantGovernmentPleaderappearingonbehalfofthe respondent Authorities more particularly the Authorized Officer [ENTITY],learnedAdvocateappearingonbehalfofthe respondentNos.4and5(newlyaddedparties)whoareobjectingto the names of the petitioners being included in the Preliminary Voters'ListoftheTraders'Constituency.
[7.0] [ENTITY],learnedAdvocateappearingonbehalfof the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the Authorized Officerhasmateriallyerredinnotincludingand/orexcludingthe namesofthepetitionersinthevoters'listofTraders'Constituency.
[7.1] Shri [ENTITY], learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitionershasvehementlysubmittedthattheAuthorizedOfficer hasmateriallyerredinnotincludingthenamesofthepetitionersin the Voters' List of Traders' Constituency relying upon and/or considering the observations made by this Court in Special Civil [ACT] Page 10 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 Application No.8955/2012 as well as [CASE NUMBER].
[7.2] It is vehemently submitted by Shri [ENTITY], learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that after the order was [CASE NUMBER] wellas[CASE NUMBER],muchwaterhasflown. ItissubmittedthattheobservationsweremadebythisCourtin [CASE NUMBER] well [CASE NUMBER] were with respect to the election which commenced in the year 2011 and which could not be held thereafterbecauseoftheinterimorderdated15.12.2011passedby theHon'bleSupremeCourt.Itissubmittedthatthereaftersection 11ofthe[ACT]hasbeenamendedandtheeligibilitycriteriaof becomingvotersintheTraders'Constituencyhavebeenchanged materially. It is submitted that therefore, when the Hon'ble SupremeCourtpermittedtheStatetoholdtheelectionasperthe amended[ACT]intheyear2016andthereafterwhenthefresh electionprocesshasbegun,theeligibilitycriteriaofagriculturists/ tradersisrequiredtobeconsideredaspertheamended[ACT] andtherefore,theearlierorderpassedbythisCourtinSpecialCivil Application[CASE NUMBER] shallnotbeabartoincludenamesofthepetitionersinthevoters' list of Traders' Constituency, however subject to fulfilling the eligibilitycriteriaaspertheamendedAct,2015.
[7.3] It is further submitted by Shri [ENTITY], learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that even the Hon'ble [ACT] Page 11 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 SupremeCourtalsorecordedthestatementonbehalfoftheState thattheStateproposestoconducttheelectioninthelightofthe amendedprovision.ItissubmittedthateventheHon'bleSupreme CourtdismissedtheSpecialLeavePetitionspreferredbytheprivate parties by observing that as the State proposes to conduct the electioninlightoftheamendedprovision,itisnotnecessarytogo intothemeritofthecases.Itissubmittedthatthereforewhenthe Hon'bleSupremeCourtpassedtheorderdated22.01.2016itwas broughttothenoticeoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtoftheamended provision.ItissubmittedthatthereforetheelectionoftheMarket Committee is required to be held and conducted in light of the amended provision. It is submitted that therefore whatever the observations made earlier while disposing of [CASE NUMBER] maynotoperateforalltimetocomeandmoreparticularlydespite thefactthatthefresh denovoelectionprocesshasstartedtohold the election of the Market Committee as per the amended provision.ItissubmittedbyShri[ENTITY],learnedAdvocateappearing onbehalfofthepetitionersthateventheAuthorizedOfficerhas preparedthevoterslistwithrespecttootherconstituenciesasper the amended provision. However, though the petitioners are holdingthetraders'licensesandarefulfillingtheeligibilitycriteria tobecomeavoterintheTraders'Constituencyaspertheamended provision,theirnamesarenotincludedbytheAuthorizedOfficer solelyconsideringtheobservationsmadebythisCourtin[CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER]totheeffectthatallthosetraderswhoaregranted thelicensesafter30.08.2011shallnotbeeligible tobecome the [ACT] Page 12 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 votersintheensuingelection.Itissubmittedthatensuingelection was required to be construed only with respect to the election which was the subject matter before the Court earlier i.e. 2011 election.
[7.4] It is further submitted by Shri [ENTITY], learned Advocate appearingonbehalfofthepetitionersthatifthecaseonbehalfof the Authorized Officer and respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein is acceptedandthoughthepetitionersareassucheligibletobecome thevotersaspertheamendedprovision,givingeffecttotheorder passedbythisCourtinSpecialCivilApplicationNo.8955/2012and [CASE NUMBER]wouldtantamounttonullifying theamendedprovision.Itissubmittedthatthereforecasesofthe petitioners are required to be considered as per the amended provisionandtheobservationsmadebythisCourtwhiledisposing of [CASE NUMBER] and Letters Patent AppealNo.462/2014shallnotcomeinthewayofthepetitionersto becomethevotersintheTraders'Constituencywithrespecttothe electionwhichistobeheldandconductedintheyear2017for which a de novo and fresh election process has begun. It is submittedthatfortheelectiontobeconductedintheyear2017as perthefreshelectionprogrammedated14.03.2017andthesame cannot be said to be in continuance of the earlier election programmeand/ortheelectiontobeconductedintheyear2011. Itissubmittedthatinanycasethereaftermuchwaterhasflown even after the order passed by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] andevensection11ofthe[ACT]hasbeenamendedandthe [ACT] Page 13 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 eligibility criteria for Traders as voters has been changed substantially.
Makingabovesubmissionsitisrequestedtoallowthepresent petition and quash and set aside the impugned decision of the AuthorizedOfficerinnotincludingthenamesofthepetitionersin thevoterslistofTraders'Constituencywhichissolelybasedupon the observations made by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER] and to directtheAuthorizedOfficertoincludethenamesofthepetitioners intheVotersListofTraders'Constituency,subjecttofulfillingthe eligibilitycriteriaaspertheamendedprovision.
[8.0] [ENTITY],learnedAssistantGovernmentPleader appearingonbehalfoftheState/AuthorizedOfficerhassubmitted that as such the impugned decision / action of the Authorized OfficerinnotincludingthenamesofthepetitionersintheVoters' List of Traders' Constituency is bonafide and considering the observationsmadebythisCourtwhiledisposingoftheSpecial[CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER].Itissubmittedthatas,whiledisposingofthe[CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER],itwasobservedthatthosetraderswhoaregranted thelicensesafter30.08.2011shallnotbeentitledtobecomethe votersintheensuingelectionandtherefore,after2011,forthefirst timetheelectionisbeingheldintheyear2017,thesamecanbe saidtobeensuingelectionandtherefore,thepetitionerswhoare grantedthetraderslicensesafter30.08.2011,theirnamesarenot includedintheVoters'ListforTraders'Constituency.Howeverhas [ACT] Page 14 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 fairly conceded that a statement was made before the Hon'ble SupremeCourtthattheStateproposestoholdthefreshelectionas per the amended provision. Therefore he has requested to pass appropriateorderwhichthisCourtdeemsfit. Hehasalsofairly conceded that with respect to other constituencies more particularlyagriculturistconstituencytheeligibilitycriteriaasper theamendedprovisionhasbeenmadeapplicableandthenamesof the petitioners are not included in the Voters List of Traders' Constituency solely considering the observations made while disposing of [CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER].
[9.0] PresentpetitionisvehementlyopposedbyShriDipen[ENTITY], learnedAdvocateappearingonbehalfoftherespondentNos.4and
5.Itissubmittedthatasincaseoftherespectivepetitionersthe traders' licenses are issued after 30.08.2011, considering the observations made by this Court while disposing of [CASE NUMBER] totheeffectthatallthosetraderswhoaregrantedthelicensesafter 30.08.2011shallnotbeconsideredasvotersintheensuingelection andtheelectiontobeheldandconductedintheyear2017canbe saidtobe"ensuingelection",theAuthorizedOfficerisjustifiedin not including the names of the petitioners in the Voters' List of Traders'Constituency.
[9.1] It is further submitted by Shri [ENTITY], learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 that if the namesofthepetitionersaredirectedtobeincludedintheVoters' [ACT] Page 15 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 ListofTraders'Constituency,inthatcase,itwouldbenullifyingthe orders passed by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER]. It is submitted that the order passed by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] haveassuchattainedfinalityandtherefore,thepetitionerswhoare granted traders' licenses after 30.08.2011 are not entitled to becomethevotersintheensuingelection.Itissubmittedthatby grantingsuchreliefpetitionersshallbeconferredtherightswhich aredeniedbythisCourtwhiledisposingofSpecialCivilApplication [CASE NUMBER].
[9.2] It is further submitted by Shri [ENTITY], learned Advocate appearingonbehalfoftherespondentNos.4and5thatassuchthe AuthorizedOfficerwhilepreparingthevoterslistinquestionhad consideredtheeligibilitycriteriaaspertheamendedprovisionwith respecttotraders,howeverthepetitioners'namesarenotrequired to be included in the voters' list as they have been granted the traders'licensesafter30.08.2011i.e.aftertheAdministratorwas appointed.
[9.3] Shri [ENTITY], learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondentNos.4and5hasrequestednottoentertainthepresent petitionagainstnoninclusionofthenamesofthepetitionersinthe voters' list of Traders' Constituency, on the ground that the petitionersshallhavethealternativestatutoryremedyavailableby preferringtheelectionpetitionunderRule28oftheAPMCRules.It issubmittedthatasobservedbytheDivisionBenchofthisCourtin [ACT] Page 16 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 the case of [PRECEDENT] StateofGujaratreportedin2016JX(Guj) 1045thedisputewithrespecttotheinclusionand/ornoninclusion ofthenamesinthevoters'listcanbeconsideredintheelection petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and therefore, the petitionunderArticle226ofthe[ACT]ofIndiachallenging the action of the Authorized Officer in including and/or non includingthenamesinthevoters'listshallnotbemaintainable.It is submitted that the Special Leave Petition against the said decisionhasbeendismissedbytheHon'ble SupremeCourt. Itis thereforesubmittedbyShri[ENTITY],learnedAdvocateappearingon behalfoftherespondentNos.4and5thatthepresentpetitionas perthedecisionoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtinthecaseof BhesavahiGroupVividhKaryakariSevaSahakariMandaliLimited (Supra) shall not be maintainable and therefore, the present petitionbedismissedrelegatingthepetitionerstoavailalternative statutoryremedyavailable underRule28oftheAPMCRulesby wayofelectionpetition.
[10.0] Inrejoinderandinsofarasthesubmissiononbehalfof therespondentNos.4and5thatthepresentpetitionshallnotbe maintainable as the petitioners would have statutory remedy availableunderRule28oftheAPMCRulesandthesubmissionon behalfoftherespondentNos.4and5thatagainstthedecisionof theAuthorizedOfficerinincludingand/ornotincludingthenames inthevoters'list,apetitionunderArticle226ofthe[ACT]of India shall not be maintainable is concerned, Shri [ENTITY], learned Advocateappearingonbehalfofthepetitionershasheavilyrelied [ACT] Page 17 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 uponthedecisionoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtinthecaseof [PRECEDENT]theDivisionBenchhasheld thatinexceptionalcaseifmadeout,theCourtcaninterferewith thedecisionoftheAuthorizedOfficerinpreparingthevoters'list.It issubmittedthatdecisionofthisCourtinthecaseofDahedaGroup SevaSahkariMandaliLimited(Supra)hasalsobeenconfirmedby theHon'bleSupremeCourt.
[10.1] ItisfurthersubmittedbyShri[ENTITY],learnedAdvocate appearingonbehalfofthepetitionersthatevenotherwisesofaras thepresentcaseisconcerned,namesofpetitionersarenotincluded in the Voters' List of Traders' Constituency solely relying upon and/orconsideringtheobservationsmadebythisCourtin[CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER] and the question shall be with respect to the interpretationoftheobservations/orderspassedbythisCourtin [CASE NUMBER] No.462/2014andtherefore,theelectionpetitionunderRule28of the [ACT] cannot be said to be efficacious alternative remedy,astheDirectorand/orAppropriateAuthorityunder[SECTION] of the [ACT] shall not have any authority and/or jurisdiction to interpret and/or make any comments on the observations made by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER]. It is submittedthatthereforethequestioninthepresentpetitionbeing solely with respect to the observations made by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] [ACT] Page 18 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 No.462/2014andeventhelearnedSingleJudgeintheorderdated 04.05.2017hasalsoobservedthattheobservationsmadebythis CourtinSpecialCivilApplicationNo.8955/2012andLettersPatent AppealNo.462/2014shallhavedirectbearingonthedecisionof theAuthorizedOfficerinnotincludingthenamesofthepetitioners in the Voters' List of Traders' Constituency, it is requested to considerthepetitiononmerits.
[11]. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length.
[12]. Attheoutset,itisrequiredtobenotedthattherespective petitionersclaimtobeholdingtheTraderslicensesincelastmore than5to7years.TheelectionfortheAPMC, Kalavadhasbeen declaredinthemonthofMarch2017andtheelectionprogramme hasbeenpublishedon14.03.2017.TheAuthorizedOfficerhasnot includedthenamesofthepetitionersinthevoterslistofTraders Constituency solely considering the observations made by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8955 of 2012 as well as [CASE NUMBER],bywhich,whenthequestion before this Court was with respect to the election of the APMC, Kalavadwhichwasdeclaredintheyear2011andastheelection couldnotbehelddespitethetermofthemarketcommitteehad expiredandtheAdministratorwasappointedandatthattimeand stage, it was apprehended that the Administrator may grant / renewtheTraderslicensesonlywithaviewtoinflatethenumbers of voters and therefore, at that stage a statement was made on behalfoftheState,moreparticularly,AdministratoroftheMarket [ACT] Page 19 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 CommitteethatthoseTraderswhoareissuedtheTraderslicense after30.08.2011,theyshallnotbeconsideredeligibleforvotersin the"ensuingelection"andtherefore,and/orthosecircumstances, thelearnedSingleJudgeaswellasDivisionBenchofthisCourtin [CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER] respectively passed an order that those TraderswhoaregrantedtheTradeslicenseafter30.08.2011shall not be considered as voters in the ensuing election. Therefore, consideringtheabove observationsandtheordernowwhenthe electionoftheAPMC,Kalavadhasbeendeclaredinthemonthof March2017andtheelectionistobeheldnowwhichistobeheld for the first time after 2011, names of the petitioners are not includedinthevoterslistofTradersConstituency.Therefore,the shortquestionwhichisposedfortheconsiderationofthisCourtis whetherinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,theAuthorized Officerisjustifiedinnotincludingthenamesofthepetitionersin thevoterslistofTradersConstituencyornot?
[13]. The objection is raised by the learned Advocate for the respondentnos.4and5thatasthedisputeiswithrespecttovoters listandtherefore,asperthedecisionoftheDivisionBenchofthis court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (Supra), by which, relying upon and consideringtheearlierdecisionoftheFullBenchofthisCourtin the case of [PRECEDENT]thepetitionunderArticle226of [ACT] Page 20 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 the [ACT] with respect to voters list shall not be maintainableandtherefore,itisrequestedtodismissthepresent petition on the ground of statutory alternative remedy to the petitionersbywayofElectionPetitionunderRule28oftheRules.
However, it is required to be noted that identical question cametobeconsideredbytheanotherDivisionBenchofthisCourt in the case of [PRECEDENT] and considering the observationsmadebytheFullBenchinthecaseofDahedaGroup SevaSahkariMandaliLimited(supra)andthesubsequentdecision oftheDivisionBenchafterthedecisionoftheFullBenchinthe caseofDahedaGroupSevaSahkariMandaliLimited(supra),itis observed and held that in exceptional case being made out and without disturbing the election programme, the Court may entertainthepetitionunderArticle226ofthe[ACT]ofIndia. In paragraph 13, 13.3, 13.4 and 13.5, the Division Bench has observedandheldasunder:
13.Nowsofarastherelianceplaceduponthedecisionof theFullBenchofthisCourtinthecaseofDahedaGroup Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (Supra) and even the subsequentdecisionofDivisionBenchofthisCourtin the case of [ENTITY]) by Shri [ENTITY], learned Counsel appearingon behalf of the respondentshereinandhissubmissionthatinviewof the alternative remedyavailable under [SECTION] ofthe Rules,thedisputewithrespecttotheadditionand/or alteration in the voters' list and/or with respect to inclusionand/orexclusion ofthenamesinthevoters' list,apetitionunderArticle226ofthe[ACT]of India is not maintainable and therefore, no relief as prayed for in the present petition may be granted in exerciseofpowersunderArticle226ofthe[ACT] ofIndiaisconcerned,attheoutsetitisrequiredtobe notedthateveninthedecisioninthecaseofDaheda GroupSevaSahakariMandliLimited(Supra),theFull [ACT] Page 21 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 Benchwhileholdingthatexclusionorinclusionofthe names from the voters' list cannot be termed extraordinarycircumstanceswarrantinginterferenceby theHighCourtunderArticle226ofthe[ACT]of India,hasrecognizedthatinexceptionalcases,theCourt canexercisethepowersofjudicialreview,whichisthe basicstructure.TheaforesaidFullBenchdecisioninthe case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (Supra)cametobeconsideredbytheDivisionBenchin thecaseofShrutbandhuH.Popat(Supra)[2008(1)GLH 575] and in paras 25 to 27, the Division Bench as observedandheldasunder:
"25.In [PRECEDENT] principles in paragraphs 28 and 32 of the judgment: "28.Electiondisputesarenotjustprivatecivildisputes betweentwoparties.Thoughthereisanindividualora fewindividualsarrayedaspartiesbeforetheCourtbut thestakesoftheconstituencyasawholeareontrial.
Whicheverwaythelisterminatesitaffectsthefateofthe constituencyandthecitizensgenerally.Aconscientious approachwithoverridingconsiderationforwelfareofthe constituencyandstrengtheningthedemocracyiscalled for. Neither turning a blind eye to the controversies which have arisen nor assuming a role of overenthusiastic activist would do. The two extremes havetobeavoidedindealingwithelectiondisputes.
32.Forconveniencesakewewouldnowgenerallysum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two [ACT]Bencheshavealreadysaidandthenadding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysismadebyushereinabove:
1) If an election, (the term 'election' being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedingscommencingfromthedateofnotificationof election till the date of declaration of result) is to be calledinquestionandwhichquestioningmayhavethe effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completingofproceedingsinelections.
2) Anydecisionsoughtandrenderedwillnotamount to "calling in question an election" if it subserves the progressoftheelectionandfacilitatesthecompletionof the election. Anything done towards completing or in [ACT] Page 22 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be describedasquestioningtheelection.
3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the wellsettled parameters which enable judicialreviewofdecisionsofstatutorybodiessuchason acaseofmalafideorarbitraryexerciseofpowerbeing made out or the statutory body being shown to have actedinbreachoflaw.
4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progressoftheelectionproceedings,judicialintervention isavailableifassistanceoftheCourthasbeensoughtfor merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the electionproceedings,toremovetheobstaclestherein,or topreserveavitalpieceofevidenceifthesamewouldbe lostordestroyedorrenderedirretrievablebythetime theresultsaredeclaredandstageissetforinvokingthe jurisdictionoftheCourt.
5) TheCourtmustbeverycircumspectandactwith caution whileentertaininganyelectiondisputethough nothit by the bar ofArticle 329(b) butbrought to it duringthependencyofelectionproceedings.TheCourt must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings.Carehastobetakentoseethatthereisno attempt to utilise the Court's indulgence by filing a petitionoutwardlyinnocuousbutessentiallyasubterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needlesstosaythatintheverynatureofthethingsthe Courtwouldactwithreluctanceandshallnotactexcept on a clear and strong case for its intervention having beenmadeoutbyraisingthepleaswithparticularsand precision and supporting the same by necessary material."
(emphasissupplied)
26. The present case certainly falls in the category of extraordinarysituationswhereinthewritjurisdictionwill havetobeexercisedforthewelfareoftheconstituency ofthetradersandforstrengtheningthedemocracy.The Resolution dated 20012007 was a clear attempt to subvert the fair election process and, therefore, this Court merely proposes to correct the progress of the election proceedings by removing the attempt of the outgoing office bearers of the APMC to subvert the electionprocessbycreatinganartificialmajorityinthe constituency of traders holding general licences under [SECTION] Page 23 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 Act.
27.WemaynowdealwiththedecisionoftheFullBench heavilyrelieduponbyMr.[ENTITY] Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited (supra) decided on 27.4.2005. The following questions were referredtotheFullBenchinthecontextofelectionsto theAPMCsandthescopeofRule28oftheAPMCRules constitutingtheElectionTribunalfordecidingdisputes relatingtoelectionstoAPMCs:
I.Whetherapersonwhosenameisnotincludedinthe Voters'ListcanavailprovisionsofRule28oftherulesby filingelectionpetition?
II.WhethertheremedyunderRule28canbetermedto beefficaciousremedy?
III. Whether a petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is maintainable in an election process challenging an order issued by the Election Officers i.e. inclusion or deletion of the names of the votersintheVoters'List?
After considering various decisions of the Apex Court andalsothedecisionsofvariousBenchesofthisCourt, theFullBenchansweredtheReferenceasunder:
I.Apersonwhosenameisnotincludedinthevoters'list canavailbenefitofprovisionsofRule28oftheRulesby filingElectionPetition.
II.As theauthorityunderRule28haswidepowerto cancel,confirmandamendtheelectionandtodirectto hold fresh election in case the election is set aside, remedyunderRule28isanefficaciousremedy.
III. Even though a petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT]ofIndiaismaintainablethoughalternative remedyisavailable,thepowersaretobeexercisedinof extraordinaryorspecialcircumstancessuchaswherethe orderisultraviresornullityand/orexfaciewithout jurisdiction.Theexclusionorinclusionofnamesinthe voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Court underArticle226ofthe[ACT]ofIndiaandsuch questionsaretobedecidedinanElectionPetitionunder Rule28oftheRules."
[ACT] Page 24 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 13.3. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decisionoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtinthecaseof PatelTalshabhaiPurabhai(Supra)reportedin2011(4) GLH3544takingtheviewthatwithrespecttodisputeof addition, alteration of voters' list, an alternative efficacious remedy under [SECTION] of the Rules is available and therefore, the High Court would not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction is concerned, it is requiredtobenotedthatassuchinananotherdecision headedbythesamelearnedJudgeinthecaseofPatel Talshabhai Purabhai (Supra) as held in the case of ShrutbandhuH.Popat(Supra)renderedinSpecialCivil ApplicationNo.16246/2011dated13.12.2011hastaken acontraryviewandevenafterconsideringthedecision of theFullBenchof thisCourtinthe case ofDaheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (Supra) after consideringthedecisionoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtin thecaseofAshokKumar(Supra);inthecaseofPundlik (Supra) and other decisions and even considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] has held that in an appropriatecasebeingmadeout,awritpetitionunder [SECTION] of the [ACT] would be maintainableandareliefcanbegrantedinexerciseof powersunderArticle226ofthe[ACT]ofIndia.
13.4. IntherecentdecisionoftheDivisionBenchofthis CourtinthecaseofVasundraSamudayikKhetiSahakari Kheti Sahakari Mandali Limited (Supra) rendered in [CASE NUMBER] and other alliedpetitionsinwhichtheDivisionBenchconsideredin detailthepowersoftheHighCourttobeexercisedunder Article226ofthe[ACT]ofIndiamoreparticularly inadisputerelatedtoelection. Inparas22to30,the DivisionBenchhasobservedandheldasunder:
"22. Under the circumstances, the question would be, shouldwerefrainfromexercisingwritjurisdictionand relegatethepetitionerstoalternativeremedyoffilingan electionpetitiononcetheelectionsareconcludedonthe basisofvoterslistpreparedbyrespondentNo.4.
23. From the days of [ENTITY], [PRECEDENT], Courtsareloathetointerferewithelectionprocessonce thesameissetinmotion.Subsequently,however,the Apex Court in the case of [ENTITY] (supra) after [ACT] Page 25 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 takingnoteof the [ENTITY], andother decisions in the field recognized a small area where despite availability of alternative remedy and in particularinthefieldofelection,interferencefromthe courtinexerciseofextraordinarywritjurisdictionunder Article226ofthe[ACT]wouldstillbeopen.The observations of the Apex Court in this regard may be noted.
"32.Forconveniencesakewewouldnowgenerallysum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two [ACT]Bencheshavealreadysaidandthenadding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysismadebyushereinabove: (1)If an election, (the term 'election' being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedingscommencingfromthedateofnotificationof election till the date of declaration of result) is to be calledinquestionandwhichquestioningmayhavethe effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completingofproceedingsinelections.
(2)Anydecisionsoughtandrenderedwillnotamountto "calling in question an election" if it subserves the progressoftheelectionandfacilitatesthecompletionof the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be describedasquestioningthe election.
(3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the wellsettled parameters which enable judicialreviewofdecisionsofstatutorybodiessuchason acaseofmalafideorarbitraryexerciseofpowerbeing madeoutorthestatutorybody beingshowntohaveactedinbreachoflaw.
(4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progressoftheelectionproceedings,judicialintervention isavailableifassistanceoftheCourthasbeen soughtformerelytocorrectorsmoothentheprogressof the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein,ortopreserveavitalpieceofevidence ifthe same would be lost or destroyed or rendered [ACT] Page 26 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stageissetforinvokingthejurisdictionoftheCourt.
(5) TheCourtmustbeverycircumspectandactwith cautionwhileentertaininganyelectiondisputethough nothit by the bar ofArticle 329(b) butbrought to it duringthependencyofelectionproceedings.TheCourt must guard against any attempt at retarding,interrupting, protracting or stalling of the electionproceedings.Carehastobetakentoseethat thereisnoattempttoutilisetheCourt'sindulgenceby filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfugeorpretextforachievinganulteriororhidden end.Needlesstosaythatintheverynatureofthethings theCourtwould actwithreluctanceandshallnot act except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessarymaterial."
Lateron,inthecaseofPundlik(supra),theApexCourt onceagain,findingthatthedecisionoftheCollectorwas wholly erroneous and contrary to [SECTION] of the MaharashtraSpecifiedCooperativeSocieties(Electionto Committees)Rules,foundthatinterferenceinexerciseof writjurisdictionwasjustified.TheApexCourtalsotook note of the fact that the petitioners therein had approachedtheHighCourtsoonaftertheexclusionfrom the voters list. In this background, distinguishing its previous judgment in the case of [PRECEDENT]
"13.Weseeconsiderableforceinthecontentionofthe learnedcounselfortheappellant.BarereadingofR.5(2) makes it abundantly clear that the society which has communicatedthenameofitsdelegatecanchangethe name of such delegate within the period stipulated therein.Itwas,therefore,opentorespondentSanghto exercisethesaidpowerinaccordancewithR.5(2)which has been done. It was the case of respondent No.2 Collector that in the list of subjects of the meeting convened on June 9, 2005, there was no subject for sendingthenameofrepresentativefortheelectionofthe Maha Sangh and yet the representative was changed whichwasnotproper.Butthelearnedcounselforthe appellanthasrightlyreferredtotheproceedingsdated [ACT] Page 27 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 June9,2005,andinparticularResolutionNo.7.Itis furtherclearfromagendanoticedatedJune2,2005,in which it was stated that the meeting of Board of DirectorsofrespondentSanghwouldbeheldonJune9, 2005fordiscussingvarioussubjectsandsubjectNo.7 relatedtothefaxmessagereceivedfromtheCollector, Mumbai, respondent No. 2 in connection with the electionofrespondentNo.3MahaSangh.Pursuantto theaboveagendanotice,ameetingwasheld,subjectNo. 7wastakenforconsiderationandResolutionNo.7was passed. By the said resolution, it was decided that insteadofnameofrespondentNo.7,nameofappellant will be sent as delegate and representative of respondentSanghandthesaidresolutionwasforwarded torespondentNo.2Collector.Hewas,therefore,under obligationtoeffectchangeunderR.5(2)oftheRules.By not acting on the resolution, the respondent No.2 Collector has acted contrary to law and the appellant waswhollyjustifiedinmakingcomplaintbeforetheHigh Courtandprayingforexerciseofwritjurisdictionunder Art.226ofthe[ACT]."
AFullBenchofthisCourtalsointhecaseofDaheda GroupSevaSahakariMandliLtd.(supra)whileholding thatexclusionorinclusionofnamesfromthevoterslist cannot be termed extraordinary circumstances warrantinginterferencebytheHighCourtunder[SECTION]ofthe[ACT],recognizedthatinexceptional cases,thecourtcanexercisepowersofjudicialreview, which is the basic structure. It was observed that ordinarily court would not like to exercise its powers underArticle226ofthe[ACT]whentheprocessof electionhasbeenset inmotioneventhoughtheremay be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparingelectoralroll.TheBenchobserved:
"32. We have gone through the aforesaid decisions closely.Therecannotbeanydisputewithregardtothe principleslaiddowntherein.Thesumandsubstanceof those decisions apply to a situation where this Court wouldliketoentertainapetitiononthefoundationthat the order is ultra vires and/or without jurisdiction and/orisviolatingprinciplesofnaturaljustice.Thus,in anexceptionalcase,thisCourtcanexercisethepowerof judicialreview,whichisabasicstructureofthesituation insuchcasesmoreparticularly,intheelectionprocess. OnethingisclearthatthisCourtordinarilywouldnot like to exercise its power under [SECTION] of the [ACT] Page 28 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 [ACT]whentheprocessofelectionhasbeensetin motioneventhoughtheremaybesomeallegedillegality orbreachofruleswhilepreparingtheelectoralroll."
24.Thus,evenintheFullBenchdecision,inthecaseof Deheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd (supra), the Benchrecognizedexceptionalcircumstanceswherewrit jurisdiction wouldstill beexercised.Later decisions of thisCourtpointedoutbytherespondentsmoreorless havefollowedtheFullBenchviewintheaforesaidcase.
25.Ontheotherhand,therearecertainjudgmentsof the Division Bench of this Court which have, in extraordinary circumstances, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, given directions to ensure conduct of elections in fair manner. In the case of [ENTITY] (supra),aDivisionBenchobservedasunder:
"21.Inviewoftheabovematerialonrecordandinview ofthefactthatthemeetingofthelicencesubcommittee was convened on 20.1.2007 after the Dy. Director for Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance had sent a communication dated 10.1.2007 for fixing the date of electionandtheDirectorofAgriculturalMarketingand RuralFinancehadalreadydeclaredtheelectionprogram on 17/18th January 2007 (which program was subsequently merely varied by postponing the date of polling and the other stages of election) and having examinedtheschemeoftheActandtheRules,wehave nomannerofdoubtinholdingthattheresolutiondated 20.1.2007ofthelicencesubcommitteeforgrantingas manyas293licences(269freshlicences)wasnotonly illegalbutalsoafraudontheelectionprocess.Asheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Election Commission of India vs. [ENTITY], 2000 (8) SCC 216, without granting stay on the election process, this Court can intervene for the purpose of strengthening the democracy and for removing the obstacles to the fair election process. In our view, therefore, this is an extraordinarysituationjustifyingourinterventionforthe purposeofstrikingdowntheresolutiondated20.1.2007 of the licence subcommittee and to direct the respondentauthoritiesnottopermitthepersonsgranted licencespursuanttothesaidresolutiontoparticipatein theelectionstoAPMCKalavad,Dist.Jamnagar.
InthecaseofGujaratStateCooperativeBank(supra),a DivisionBenchofthiscourtobservedasunder:
[ACT] Page 29 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 "14. Similar preliminary contention raised in another petitionunderArticle226ofthe[ACT]challenging thevoters'listwasrejectedbyaDivisionBenchofthis Courttowhichoneofuswasaparty.[PRECEDENT], the preliminary contention was rejected on the ground that after the decision of the Full Bench decision rendered on 27.4.2005,inthesubsequentdecision dated25.8.2005 of the Apex Court, in the case of [PRECEDENT], the Apex Courthasheldthatthoughpreparationofthevoterslist is one of the integral process of election and that normallytheHighCourtshouldnotinterfereinexercise ofpowersunderArticle226ofthe[ACT],butsuch actionmustbeinaccordancewithlaw.InPundlik'scase, theApexCourtdistinguishedtheirdecisioninShriSant SadguruJanardanSwami'scase,2001(8)SCC509in which objections against publication of theprovisional electoral roll of the society were considered by the Collector and dispose of. The final electoral roll was publishedon2.7.1999.Electionprogramwasdrawnby himon21.10.1999.Thereafterthepetitionerfiledawrit petitionintheHighCourtforquashingthevoters'list.It wasinthebackgroundofthesaidfactsthattheApex Court held in Shri [ENTITY] case that the High Court should not stay continuation of the election processeveniftheremaybesomebreachofRuleswhile preparingtheelectoralroll.[ENTITY], in the instant case the petitioner has taken action for challenging the inclusion of respondent Nos. 11 challengingtheinclusionofrespondentNos.11to15in thefinalvoters'listimmediatelyafterpublicationofthe voters'list."
InthecaseofPatelChandrakantThakorbhai(supra),a Division Bench taking note of the decisions of the SupremeCourtinthecaseofPundlik(supra)and[ENTITY] (supra), while allowing the writ petition with respecttopreparationofvoterslistobservedasunder:
"19.Inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,wehave nomannerofdoubtthattheprincipleslaiddownbytwo DivisionBenchesofthisCourtinShrutbandhuH.Popat (supra)andinKalubhaiRanabhaiAkabari(supra)must beheldtoprevailovertheprinciplethattheauthorized officer would not entertain the objections against the inclusion ofnamesofpersonsintheprovisionalvoters' [ACT] Page 30 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 list,whowerealreadyincludedinthepreliminaryvoters' list."
26. From theabove noted decisions, following aspects emerge.
27. Availability of alternative remedy though may persuadetheCourtnottoexercisewritjurisdictionunder [SECTION] of the [ACT], the same is never consideredatotalbar.Itismoreamatterofselfimposed restraintbythecourtratherthanaquestionoflackof jurisdiction. This is so because judicial review is considered as a basic feature of the [ACT]. Exercise of writ jurisdiction under [SECTION] is a constitutionalguarantee.Wemay refertothefollowing decisionsatthisstage.
27.1Inthecase [PRECEDENT]:
"17.Inasubsequent[ACT]Benchdecisionofthis [PRECEDENT], C.J.AfterananalysisofdifferentdecisionsofthisCourt affirmativelyheldthatjudicialreviewisoneofthebasic featuresofour[ACT].SuchafindingofthisCourt, obviouslymeansthattherecannotbeanadministrative reviewofadecisiontakenbyajudicialoraquasijudicial authority which has the trappings of a court. Since judicialreviewhasbeenconsideredanintrinsicpartof constutionalism,anystatutoryprovisionwhichprovides foradministrativereviewofadecisiontakenbyajudicial oraquasijudicialbodyis,therefore,inconsistentwith theaforesaidpostulateandisunconstitutional."
[PRECEDENT]
"31.Attheoutset,itmaybenotedthatequality,ruleof law,judicialreviewandseparationofpowersaredistinct concepts. They have to be treated separately, though theyareintimatelyconnected.Therecanbenoruleof lawifthereisnoequalitybeforethelaw;andruleoflaw and equality before the law would be empty words if theirviolationwasnotamatterofjudicialscrutinyor judicialreviewandjudicialreliefandallthesefeatures would lose their significance if judicial, executive and legislativefunctionswereunitedinonlyoneauthority, [ACT] Page 31 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 whosedictateshadtheforceoflaw.Theruleoflawand equalitybefore the law are designed to secure among otherthingsjustice,bothsocialandeconomic.Secondly, afederal[ACT]withitsdistributionoflegislative powers between Parliament and State Legislatures involves a limitation on legislative powers and this requires an authority other than Parliament and State Legislatures to ascertain whether the limits are transgressed and to prevent such violation and transgression.[ENTITY] that the duty to decide whether the limits are transgressed must be discharged by courts of justice. JudicialreviewoflegislationenactedbytheParliament withinlimitedpowersunderthecontrolledconstitution whichwehave,hasbeenafeatureofourlawandthisis onthegroundthatanylawpassedbyalegislaturewith limitedpowersisultraviresifthelimitsaretransgressed. TheframersconferredontheSupremeCourtthepower toissuewritsforthespeedyenforcementofthoserights andmadetherighttoapproachtheSupremeCourtfor such enforcement itself a fundamental right. Thus, judicialreviewisanessentialfeatureofour[ACT] becauseitisnecessarytogiveeffecttothedistributionof legislative power between Parliament and State Legislatures, and is also necessary to give practicable contenttotheobjectivesofthe[ACT]embodiedin PartIIIandinseveralotherArticlesofour[ACT]."
28.Despiteavailabilityofsuchwidepowersofissuance of various writs under Article226ofthe [ACT], Courtshavealways frowned uponinterferingwith the electionprocessonce the same isset inmotion. Such selfimposedrestrictionismaintainedparticularlywhen any writ or order would have the effect of either arresting or derailing or delaying the election. The paramountconsiderationbeforetheCourtalwaysisnot todelay,detractorarresttheelectionprocesswhichis alreadysetinmotion.However,ifitisfoundthatthe decisionoftheAuthorizedofficerismalafide,arbitrary, inbreachoflaworopposedtotheprinciplesofnatural justice,thecourtshaverecognizedthepowertointerfere andofteninterferedwithevenbeforethecompletionof theelectiontogivesuitabledirection withoutdelaying, derailing or arresting the election process which has alreadycommenced.Suchinterferenceisviewedasone in furtherance of holding free and fair election rather thantoarrestordelaytheelectionprocess.
[ACT] Page 32 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017
29. Underthecircumstances,weareoftheopinionthat though ordinarily court would not interfere once the election process is commenced, and particularly with respect to preparation of voters list which process is recognized as part of election process, and would ordinarily leave the parties to raise all disputes post electioninanelectionpetition,therewouldbeinstances where the interference of the court looking to the peculiarandrarecircumstanceswouldbecalledfor.In thepresentcases,aswehavealreadyheld,thedecision oftheAuthorizedOfficeriscontrarytothelawlaiddown by this court in two decisions in case of [ENTITY] (supra) and [ENTITY] (supra). No contrarydecisionshavebeencitedbeforeus.Viewofthis Court is thus consistent and unambiguous. Such pronouncement was made by learned Single Judge in caseof[ENTITY](supra)waybackin1979.Suchview wasreiteratedbyDivisionBenchmorerecentlyincaseof JagdishbhaiRanchhodbhai(supra).Asnoted,petitioners havestatedthatinelectionofotherAPMC's,voters'lists are prepared accordingly. Permitting such order to survive would only result into perpetuating palpable illegality. At the end of election also, if an election petitionisfiled,theauthoritywouldhavenoalternative buttofollowtheratiolaiddownbythisCourtinthecase of [ENTITY](supra) and in thecaseof[ENTITY](supra).Wearethereforeoftheopinion thatbygivingsuitabledirectionsifsuchinjusticecanbe remediedwithoutdelayingtheelectionorarrestingthe electionprocess,writjurisdictioninfactsofthepresent caseshouldbeexercised.
30. Before closing, we would like to clarify that interference in election process particularly in preparation of voters list would be in extremely rare circumstances.Weshouldnotmeantohavesuggested thatsuchinterferencecouldbeordinarilydonemerely becausethepetitionersmakeoutaprimafaciecaseof someillegalityorirregularity."
13.5. Thesumandsubstanceoftheaforesaiddiscussion wouldbethatwheneveritisfoundbytheCourtthatan extraordinarycaseismadeoutanditisfoundthatthere is an attempt to create an artificial majority and the actionisfoundtobenotonlyillegalbutalsofraudon election process and the intervention of the court is required,theCourtcancertainlyentertainthepetition [ACT] Page 33 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 underArticle226ofthe[ACT]ofIndiaandgrant thereliefand/orissuewritinexerciseofpowersunder Article226ofthe[ACT]ofIndia.
It is reported that the aforesaid decision has also been confirmedbytheHon'bleSupremeCourt.
[14]. Now,applyingdecisionoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtin thecaseofParshottambhaiRanchodbhaiPatel(supra)tothefacts ofthecaseonhand,weareoftheopinionthatthepetitionisnot required to be dismissed on the ground of alternative statutory remedyavailablebywayofElectionPetitionunderRule28ofthe Rules. It is true that normally in the election dispute and more particularlydisputewithrespecttothevoterslist,theCourtwould beveryslowtointerfereandentertainthepetitionunder[SECTION] of the [ACT] and aggrieved party is to be relegatedtoavailthealternativeremedyavailableoffilingElection Petition.However,asperthecardinalprincipleoflawandasper thecatenaofdecisionsoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtaswellasthis Court such alternative remedymust be an efficacious alternative remedy.Weareoftheopinionthatinthefactsandcircumstances ofthecase,thealternativestatutoryremedyavailableunder[SECTION]oftheRulestofileElection Petitioncannot besaidtobean efficacious alternative remedy available. In the present case, the question is with respect to interpretation and / or observations madebythisCourtin [CASE NUMBER] wellas[CASE NUMBER].TheAuthorizedOfficer hasnotincludedthenameofthepetitionersinthevoterslistof TradersConstituencysolelyconsideringtheobservationsmadeby [ACT] Page 34 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 this Court in [CASE NUMBER] as well as [CASE NUMBER]. Therefore, whether the observations made by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] beapplicableforalltimetocomeinfutureelectionorthesame shallberestrictedtotheelectiontobeheldintheyear2011,can be answered only by this Court and the Authority to decide the Election Petition under [SECTION] of the Rules may not be in a positiontodecidequestioneitherway.Thequestioninvolvedinthe presentpetitioncanonlybeansweredbythiscourt.Even,learned SingleJudgewhilereferringthemattertotheDivisionBenchhas alsoobservedthatclarificationisrequiredfromtheDivisionBench andtherefore,thelearnedSingleJudgehasreferredthematterto theDivisionBench.Therefore,eventhelearnedSingleJudgeisalso oftheopinionwhilereferringthemattertotheDivisionBenchthat clarificationisrequiredbytheDivisionBenchinlightoftheearlier observationsmadebythisCourtinLettersPatentAppealNo.462 of 2014. Under the circumstances and in the peculiar facts and circumstancesofthecaseandconsideringthesameasexceptional case/specialcase,thepetitionisnotrequiredtobedismissedon thegroundofavailabilityofalternativestatutoryremedyavailable underRule28oftheRulesoffilingElectionPetition.Underthe circumstances,theobjectionraisedbythelearnedadvocateforthe privaterespondentsisherebyoverruled.
[15]. Now,sofarasthemainissuei.e.Whethertheobservations madebythisCourtin[CASE NUMBER] well as [CASE NUMBER], by which, it was [ACT] Page 35 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 observed that all those Traders who are issued the license after 30.08.2011shallnotbeentitledtobecomevotersinthe"ensuing election", will come in way of the petitioners for becoming the votersintheTradersConstituencyintheelectionwhichistobe heldintheyear2017?
[15.1].Itisrequiredtobenotedthatassuchmorewaterhasflown aftertheyear2011andafterorderdated05.12.2014passedbythe Division Benchpassedin[CASE NUMBER] and now when the election has been declared in the month of March 2017. The eligibility criteria to become the voters in the Agriculturist Constituency and the Traders Constituency as per [SECTION] of the [ACT] have been materially changed / altered. [SECTION] of the [ACT] has been amended w.e.f. 10.04.2015.Section11ofthe[ACT],1963preamendedand postamended,readasunder:
[SECTION] (Preamended): [ACT] of Market Committee:
(1).Everymarketcommitteeshallconsistofthefollowing members,namely:
(i).eightagriculturistswhoshallbeelectedbymembersof managingcommitteesofcooperativesocieties(otherthan cooperative marketing societies and milk produce cooperativesocieties)dispensingagriculturalcreditinthe marketarea;
(ii).fourmemberstobeelectedintheprescribedmanner fromamongstthemselvesbythetradersholdinggeneral licenses;
(iii)xxx
(iv)xxx
(v)xxx [SECTION] (Postamended): [ACT] of Market Committee:
(1).Everymarketcommitteeshallconsistofthefollowing members,namely: [ACT] Page 36 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017
(i).eightagriculturists,whosenamesareenlistedinthe voters'listpublishedbytheElectionCommissionofIndia forsuchmarketarea,shallbeelectedbythemembersof managingcommitteeofthePrimaryAgriculturalCredit Cooperative Societies dispensing agricultural credit in themarketarea;
(ii).fourmemberstobeelectedintheprescribedmanner fromamongstthemselvesbythetradersholdinggeneral license whohavetradedinfullconformitywiththe termsandconditionsofthelicenceintheprevious financialyearandthefeespayablebythemhasnot remainedunpaid;
[15.2]. Thus, the eligibility criteria to become voters in the Agriculturist ConstituencyaswellasTradersConstituencywhich werethereintheyear2011/2014,werealtogetherdifferentthan today.Therefore,nowwhenthefresh/denovoelectionistobe held and conducted in the year 2017, the same must be in conformitywiththeamendedprovisionandtheeligibilityofvoters in the Agriculturist Constituency and Traders Constituency is requiredtobeconsideredaspertheamendedprovision.
[15.3]. At this stage, it is required to be noted that when earlierthetermofMarketCommitteeexpiredintheyear2011and thereafter the process to conduct the election of the Market Committeecommencedintheyear2011/2012,thematterreached totheHon'bleSupremeCourtandthereaftertheStatewithdrew theSpecialLeavePetitionsbeforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtby makingthestatementthatStateproposestoholdtheelectionof the Market Committee as per the amended provision and the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the State to withdraw the SpecialLeavePetitions.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtalsodismissed theotherSpecialLeavePetitionspreferredbytheprivateparties, [ACT] Page 37 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 byobservingthatnowwhentheStateproposestoholdelectionas pertheamendedprovisions,mattersarenotrequiredtobefurther consideredonmerits.EvenattentionoftheHon'bleSupremeCourt was also drawn with respect to the amended provisions. Now, therefore,whenfreshelectionsaretobeheldintheyear2017,for which,notificationhasbeenissuedon14.03.2017,theelectionof theMarketCommitteeisrequiredtobeheldaspertheamended provisionsandeligibilityofthevotersisrequiredtobeconsidered aspertheamendedprovisions.AsperthedecisionoftheDivision BenchofthisCourtinthecaseof KalubhaiRanabhaiAkabarivs. StateofGujarat&Orsreportedin2007(3)GLH57,therelevant datefordeterminingtheeligibilityofapersonforinclusioninthe voterslistwouldbethedateonwhichnotificationdeclaringthe electionhasbeenissuedbytheappropriateauthority.Therefore, theeligibilityofthepetitionerstobecomethevotersintheTraders Constituencyisassuchrequiredtobeconsideredaccordinglyand as per the amended provisions. Therefore, if the petitioners are otherwise found eligible to become the voters in the Traders Constituencyaspertheamendedprovisions,assuchtheycannot bedebarredfrombecomingthevotersintheTradersConstituency and/ortoparticipateintheelection.Denyingsuchrightwouldbe contrarytothestatutoryprovisions, whichwouldbeagainstthe democraticprocess.
[16]. Now, so far as non inclusion of the names of the petitionersinthevoters' listoftheTraders'Constituencyonthe basis of observations made by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] as well as Letters Patent Appeal [ACT] Page 38 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 No.462/2014, by which, this Court observed that those Traders who are issued the licenses after 30.08.2011 shall not be considered as eligible for voters in the "ensuing election" is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the observations made by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] required to be considered in the context, in which, they were made.ItisrequiredtobenotedthatthedisputebeforethisCourt waswithrespecttoelectionwhichwasdeclaredintheyear2012, aftertermoftheMarketCommitteehasexpiredintheyear2011 andtheAdministratorwasappointedanditwasapprehendedthat theAdministratormayrenew/grantlicensetoinflatethevoters. To the aforesaid, the statement was made by the Administrator that those Traders who are issued the license after 30.08.2011 shall not be considered as eligible for voters in the ensuing election.Therefore,the"ensuingelection"wouldbetheelectionto beheldafterthetermoftheMarketCommitteehasexpiredinthe year2011.Therefore,thesameshallbeconstruedandrestrictedto the election to be conducted / held pursuant to the election programmedeclaredintheyear2012.Thesamecannotbemade applicableforalltimetocomeinfuture,moreparticularly,when thefreshelectionhasbeendeclaredinthemonthofMarch2017 andforwhichelectionprogrammehasbeendeclaredinthemonth ofMarch2017.Inthemeantime,asobservedhereinabove,even theeligibilitycriteriahasbeenmateriallyalteredbyamendmentin Section11ofthe[ACT]andtherefore,whentheelectionisto beheldintheyear2017andfreshnotificationhasbeenissuedand evenwhenastatementoftheStateGovernmentthatnowState [ACT] Page 39 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 proposestoholdelectionaspertheamendedprovisionscametobe recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 22.01.2016,bypermittingtheStatetowithdrewtheSpecialLeave Petitions,theelectionisrequiredtobeheldaspertheamended provisionsandtheeligibilityofthepetitionerstobecomethevoters intheTraders'Constituencyisrequiredtobeconsideredasperthe amendedprovisions,howeverifotherwisetheyarefoundeligible tobecomevotersintheTraders'Constituencyaspertheamended provisions,theircasesarerequiredtobeconsideredaccordingly. Asobservedhereinabove,theobservationsmadebythisCourtin [CASE NUMBER] (towhichoneofuswas partytotheBench)may notbe madeapplicable for alltimeto comeforfutureelection,moreparticularly,whenfreshelectionis tobeheldintheyear2017andthesaidobservationsaretobe construedandrestrictedtotheelectionwhichwastobeconducted andheldaftertermoftheMarketCommitteehasexpiredinthe year2011andtheAdministratorwasappointed.Atthisstage,itis requiredtobenotedthateventheDivisionBenchvideorderdated [CASE NUMBER] theStatetoholdelectionwithinthreemonths.However,because ofthependingdispute,electioncouldnotbeheldforsixyearsand now fresh election has been declared and notification has been issued to hold the election of the Market Committee as per the amendedprovisions.Ifthesubmissionsonbehalfoftherespondent nos.4and5isacceptedandconsideringtheobservationsmadeby thisCourtin [CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER],thenamesofthepetitioners who may be otherwise eligible to become voters in the Traders [ACT] Page 40 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 Constituencyaspertheamendedprovisions,areexcludedfromthe voterslist,itmaytantamounttotakingawaytheirrightstobecome the voters and / or to participate in the election. As observed hereinabove,theeligibilitycriteriaisrequiredtobeconsideredas onthedateonwhichnotificationforelectionhasbeenissued.As observed herein above and it is not in dispute that Authorized Officerhasnotincludedthenamesofthepetitionersinthevoters list of Traders' Constituency solely on the basis of observations madebythisCourtin [CASE NUMBER] well as [CASE NUMBER]. Under the circumstances and in light of the observations made herein above,the case of the petitioners to become the voters in the Traders Constituency is required to be considered as per the amendedprovisions andthe observations made by thisCourt in [CASE NUMBER] AppealNo.462/2014shallnotcomeinthewayofthepetitioners tobecomethevotersintheTraders'Constituency,ifotherwisethey arefoundeligibletobecomevotersaspertheamendedprovisions i.e.amendedSection11ofthe[ACT],1963.
[17]. Inviewoftheaboveandforthereasonsstatedabove, thepresentpetitionsucceeds.Theimpugnedorderpassedbythe Authorized Officer in not including the names of petitioners in voters'listoftheTraders'Constituencyisherebyquashedandset asideandtheAuthorizedOfficerisherebydirectedtoconsiderthe caseofthepetitionerstoincludetheirnamesinthevoterslistof TradersConstituencyaspertheamendedprovisionsi.e.amended [SECTION] of the [ACT] and if it is found that the [ACT] Page 41 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017 respectivepetitionersareeligibletobecomevotersintheTraders Constituency as per [SECTION] of the Act as amended, the Authorized Officer to include their names in the voters list and permitthemtoparticipateintheelection,forwhich,notification has been issued on 14.03.2017. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaidextent.Nocosts.D.S.Permitted.
sd/ ([ENTITY],J.) sd/ ([ENTITY],J.) [ENTITY] [ACT] Page 42 of 42 Created On Mon May 15 23:57:16 IST 2017