Gujarat High Court High Court

Gopalbhai vs Authorised on 29 September, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Gopalbhai vs Authorised on 29 September, 2008
Author: R.M.Doshit,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice D.Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/11183/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11183 of 2008
 

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

 

GOPALBHAI
MUKUNDBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

AUTHORISED
OFFICER & CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER & 13 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
DILIP B RANA for
Petitioner 
MS ARCHANA RAVAL AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, 
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2, 14, 
MR VC VAGHELA for
Respondent(s) : 3 -
13. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

 HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D. DAVE  29th September, 2008
		
	

 

 ORAL
ORDER

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

The
petitioner, Director, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bodeli
has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution to challenge the order dated 1st September,
2008 made by the Election Officer in respect of the objections lodged
by the petitioner against the provisional list of voters’ published
on 11th August, 2008. According to the petitioner, several
societies [respondents nos. 3 to 14 before this Court] are
non-functional, their names ought not to have been included in the
electorate. The said objections have been rejected by the Election
Officer by impugned order dated 1st September,
2008. Therefore, the present petition.

Mr.

Rana has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that the
decision of the Election Officer is cryptic. The Election Officer has
not recorded any reason for rejecting the objections lodged by the
petitioner.

We
see no reason to interfere with the order of the Election Officer at
this stage. If need be, the petitioner may file substantive
proceedings to challenge the election before the appropriate forum.

The
petition is dismissed in limine. Notice is
discharged.

{Miss
R.M Doshit, J.}

{Sharad
D. Dave, J.}

Prakash*

   

Top