Gujarat High Court High Court

Umeshbhai vs Authorized on 18 April, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Umeshbhai vs Authorized on 18 April, 2011
Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/4751/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4751 of 2011
 

=========================================================

 

UMESHBHAI
SHANTILAL SHAH - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

AUTHORIZED
OFFICER & COOPERATIVE OFFICER ATTACHED TO MARKET & 2 -
Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
DILIP B RANA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MS MONANI BHATT, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 18/04/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)

1. We
have heard learned counsel Mr. Dilip B. Rana for the petitioner and
learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Monali Bhatt for respondent
No.1.

2. The
impugned order has been passed on 25.3.2011, by which the objection
of the petitioner challenging voter list has been rejected. The
petitioner after receiving the said order on 29.3.2011, again raised
objection. This subsequent objection was not maintainable and it was
open to the petitioner to challenge order dated 25.3.2011 by filing a
writ petition.

3. The
final voter list was published on 6.4.2011, whereas the writ petition
of the petitioner has been filed in the Registry of this Court on
13.4.2011, i.e. after publication of the final voter list.

4. At
this stage, we are not inclined to interfere with the election
process. In view of Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited Vs. R.D. Rohit,
Autho.Officer & Co.Operative Officer (Marketing)
reported in 2006(1) GCD 211 (Guj)[FB], it is
always open to the petitioner to challenge the election on the
ground that instead of 15 members, names of 22 members have been
forwarded and 22 members have illegally participated in the election.
In view of the said Full Bench decision of this Court, the petitioner
has adequate opportunity and remedy. This petition is dismissed on
the ground of alternative remedy.

(V.M.

SAHAI, J.)

(G.B.

SHAH, J.)

omkar

   

Top