Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9942/2011 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9942 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Sd/-
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
No
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
No
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ? No
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No
=========================================
SABARKANTHA
ZILA MADHYAST CONSUMERS AND CREDIT FEDERATION
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
=========================================Appearance
:
MR ASHISH H
SHAH for
the Petitioner
MS NJ SHAH, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 02/08/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We have
heard learned counsel Mr. Ashish H. Shah for the petitioner and
learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. N.J. Shah appearing for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on para 29 of
the judgment rendered in the case of Shrutbandhu H. Popat Vs.
State of Gujarat and others, 2008(1) GLH 575 and has urged
that the name of the petitioner has wrongly not been included in the
voter list, though the petitioner holds licence for carrying on
business in the Himmatnagar Agriculture Produce Market.
3. The Full
Bench of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli
Limited v.R.D.Rohit, Authorised Officer and Co Operative Officer
(Marketing) 2006-GCD-211 has observed as under:
“i.
A person whose name is not included in the voters’ list can avail
benefit of provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules by filing Election
Petition.
ii.
As the authority under Rule 28 has wide power to cancel confirm and
amend the election and to direct to hold fresh election in case the
election is set aside, remedy under Rule 28is an efficacious remedy.
iii.
Even though a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is maintainable though alternative remedy is available, the
powers are to be exercised in case of extraordinary or special
circumstances such as where the order is ultra vires or nullity
and/or ex facie without jurisdiction. The exclusion or inclusion of
names in the voters’ list cannot be termed as extraordinary
circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and such questions are to be decided in
an Election Petition under Rule 28 of the Rules.”
4. In
view of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of this Court, since
the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of filing an Election
Petition, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. This
petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative
remedy of Election Petition.
Sd/-
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.)
Sd/-
(G.B.
SHAH, J.)
omkar
Top