Gujarat High Court High Court

Bhatlai vs Director on 11 January, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Bhatlai vs Director on 11 January, 2010
Author: R.M.Doshit,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/28/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

 


 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 28 of 2010
 

To


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 37 of 2010
 

 


 

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

 

BHATLAI
GAMNA PIYAT VISTARMA PANINI VAHECHANI MATENI SAHKARI MANDLI-
Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

DIRECTOR
& 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
DILIP B RANA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR UMESH TRIVEDI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Respondent : 1, 
MR BS PATEL, SR.ADVOCATE for the
Objector. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 11/01/2010 

 

 
 


 

COMMON
ORAL ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT)

Leave
to implead the objector Shri Dipen H.Desai as party respondent.
Learned advocate Mr.B.S.Patel has appeared for the objector.

Feeling
aggrieved by the order dated 1st January 2010 made by the
District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Surat, the petitioners
have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

The
petitioners one Bhatlai Gamna Piyat Vistarma Panini Vahechani Mateni
Sahkari Mandli Limited and others claim to be the agricultural credit
cooperative societies. They have claimed a right to be included in
the voters’ list for the forthcoming election of the Managing
Committee of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Surat.

By
impugned order, the petitioners are not believed to be agricultural
credit cooperative societies for inclusion in the voters’ list.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.

Prima
facie, we are not satisfied that the petitioners are the agricultural
credit cooperative societies. The petitions are summarily rejected.
Notice in each petition is discharged.

This
order shall not preclude the petitioners from availing of the
statutory remedy of petition under rule 28 of the Rules of 1965.

Registry
will maintain copy of this order in each petition.

 

 


 

(K.M.Thaker,
J.)				  (Ms.R.M.Doshit, J.)
 

/moin

    

 
	   
      
      
	    
		      
	   
      
	  	    
		   Top