Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3486/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3486 of 2010
=========================================
PRABHUDASBHAI
LAKHABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
=========================================Appearance
:
MR KM PATEL,
Senior Counsel, assisted by MR ASHISH H SHAH
for the Petitioner
MR
MG NANAVATI, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
DS
AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 2 -
4.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 29/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)
Heard
the learned counsel for the parties.
From
the facts obtaining on record, this is per se clear that the
nomination form was presented along with certificate of being not
defaulter on 8.3.2010 at 12.05 hrs. as per the record produced by the
Government before us. The Bank official has given explanation that he
had issued the certificate at 5.00 pm. Per se, this statement
of the Bank official is incorrect because the returning officer has
received the nomination paper along with the certificate in question
at 12.05 hrs. which is borne out from the record produced by the
State Government before us. In that view of the matter, any
subsequent statement of the Bank official that the certificate was
issued by him at 5.00 p.m. cannot be considered to be a legitimate
statement. This is per se the statement which is required to
be investigated and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies will look
into it. As to how the certificate, which was issued by the Bank and
received by the returning officer at 12.05 hrs., can be said to have
been issued at 5.00 pm. This dispute will be gone into by the
Registrar and the concerned official will be put to task because,
obviously, the returning officer has received the paper at 12.05 hrs.
and that is the fact, which cannot be disputed and denied, as the
bank official have submitted. In that view of the matter since at
the time when the nomination paper was filed, there was nothing due
against the petitioner as per the certificate No.143125. The stand of
the returning officer in rejecting his nomination paper is per se
found to be groundless. Because then the election has already taken
place and this ground will be available to the petitioner in election
petition. In the facts of the case, nomination form of petitioner
prima facie appears to have
been rejected wrongly.
In
view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of because
at this juncture, voting has already taken place. We will not go into
the question further. It is shocking that the bank authorities have
taken the stand which is falsified by the record of the State
Government. Such kind of waivering stand of the bank official has
tendency for interference in the process of election, it requires to
be attended by the State Government authorities. The authorities of
the State Government will look into the matter and take corrective
measure against such official of
the bank.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.)
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
omkar
Top