Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11475/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11475 of 2008
=========================================================
BABUBHAI
SOMABHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ELECTION
OFFICER & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR VIMAL A PUROHIT for Petitioner(s) :
1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for
Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE
Date
: 15/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT)
Draft
amendment is allowed. The amendment shall be carried out forthwith.
Feeling
aggrieved by the rejection of his nomination form for election to the
Committee of the members of Gandhinagar Nagarik Cooperative Bank
Limited, Gandhinagar, the petitioner has preferred the present
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The
petitioner filled in his nomination on 8th September,
2008. His name was proposed by one Shantidan Jivabhai Gadhvi bearing
membership no.5511. On scrutiny of the nomination form on 11th
September, 2008, the Returning Officer rejected the same. According
to the Returning Officer, the name of the proposer was not correct.
Therefore, the present petition.
Mr.Majmudar
has appeared for the petitioner. In the submission of Mr.Majmudar,
the aforesaid proposer had purchased one share of the Bank from the
former member one Ambalal Shankarlal Valand and had thus become the
member of the Bank. His name also appears in the register of members
at Sr.No.5511. Mr.Majmudar has submitted that before rejecting his
nomination, the petitioner was not given opportunity to explain the
objection raised by the Returning Officer. He has relied upon Rule 23
of the Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to
Committees Rules, 1982. He has submitted that the said Rule requires
inquiry be conducted and the person be given opportunity of hearing.
In the present case, nothing of the kind has been done. Without
giving any opportunity of explanation to the petitioner, his
nomination has been rejected. He has agreed that there is some
discrepancy in the name of the proposer but it is not such which
should invalidate the nomination of the petitioner.
We
are unable to agree with Mr.Majmudar. The member referred to in the
register of members at Sr.No.5511 is one Shantilal Jivabhai Gadhvi
who is shown to have become member by transfer of one share on 14th
March, 1980. The name of the proposer in the nomination filled in by
the petitioner is one Shantidan Jivabhai Gadhvi. Thus, identity of
the proposer is in question. The discrepancy is material and
substantial.
No
interference is warranted. The petition is summarily rejected.
(
Sharad D Dave, J ) ( Ms.R.M.Doshit, J )
pathan
Top