In R/SPECIAL C.A. NO.984 of 2023-Issue of inclusion/exclusion from voters list could be effectively ventilated before forum provided under Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market Rules, 1965: Gujarat HC dismisses Society's petition considering availability of alternative efficacious remedy in terms of Rule 28
Justice J.C. Doshi [17-05-2023]

Read Order: THE SUKHIYAPURI VIBHAG FAL AND SAKBHAJI UDPADHAKONI KHARID AND VECHAN KARNARI SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD v. STATE OF GUJARAT 

Tulip Kanth

Ahmedabad, May 22,2023: Considering the fact that the plea of the petitioner-society for inclusion of the names of the members of the Managing Committee could be heard before the forum provided under the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market Rules, 1965, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed a Society's petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Referring to Rule 28, Justice J.C. Doshi  said, "Aforesaid provision indicates that the issue of inclusion/ exclusion from the voters list could be effectively ventilated before the forum provided by Statute."

In this matter,the petitioner-society, functioning as per the provisions of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce and Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963 and Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market Rules, 1965 as well as the bylaws of the society, are carrying on activities of selling and purchasing of agricultural produce within the market area and they are holding the general licence.

The election of the APMC, Godhra has been declared and as per the election programme, the voters’ name were forwarded for the voters list. In the preliminary voters list, the names of the petitioners were included, however, two respondents filed objections against the inclusion of the names of the petitioner society in the voters list. 

Consequent to the objections and issuance of the show cause notice, the petitioners appeared before the authorized officer and filed reply stating that they are engaged in the business of selling and purchasing of agricultural produce and are holding general licence of the market committee and therefore, the objections preferred by the respondents were vague.

As per the petitioner, the authorized officer who had no jurisdiction to initiate the fishy or rowing inquiry for the fact finding under the Rule 8 of the Rules, transgressed its jurisdiction and decided that the petitioners are not engaged in the business of agriculture produce and therefore, their names cannot remain in preliminary voters list. This act of the authorized officers was de hors the provisions of the APMC Act.

It was the society’s plea before the High Court that to issue a direction quashing and setting aside the order passed by the fourth respondent and direct the respondent to continue the name of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner societies in the voters list for Godhra APMC and allow the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner societies to take part in the election.

The Bench opined that to arrive at the conclusion that whether names of the petitioners are to be included in the voters list or otherwise is a finding of fact. Rule 28 of the Rules provides the forum created under the statute and would adjudicate any such issue on the fact based on the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before such authority.

The Bench referred to the judgment in Mandropur (Fatehpur) Juth Seva Sahkari Mandali Limited, wherein it has been held that inquiry of summary nature is an inquiry into minimum necessary facts to find out a thing or to ascertain a state of affair in respect of a fact or aspect for which derivation of knowledge, and for that purpose the inquiry is intended. A summary inquiry would indeed include availing and knowing bare minimum facts and to find out whether the requisite rootfacts exist. It is not the process of adjudication.

The High Court also noted that the issue of inclusion/ exclusion from the voters list could be effectively ventilated before the forum provided by the Statute.

Thus, the Bench was not inclined the entertain present Special Civil Applications as the petitioners failed to make out any exceptional case warranting interference of this Court under Article 226, more particularly in view of alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioners society and more particularly in absence of any extraordinary circumstances.

“For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the petitions warranting the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court makes it clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the contention raised by learned advocates for both the sides and it would be open for the petitioners to canvass the same before the competent authority if the petitioners are advised to choose forum under Rule 28 of the Rules”, the Bench said while dismissing the petition.