Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4282/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4282 of 2010
=========================================================
PRAVINSINH
HEMANTSINHJI ZALA & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ELECTION
OFFICER & DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DILIP B RANA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
MR MG NANAVATI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 08/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)
Heard
learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged
the decision of the Election Officer dated 22.2.2010 whereby
objections submitted by the petitioners to the voters list prepared
by the Election Officer have been rejected. It is the contention of
the petitioners that just objections raised by them have been
arbitrarily rejected by the Election Officer on technical grounds
without considering the merits of those objections.
It
is not in dispute that the objections have been rejected by an order
dated 22.2.2010 and that the Election Officer has published the final
voters list on 25.2.2010 for conducting the election of The Jamnagar
District Cooperative Bank. It is pertinent to note that this Court in
a cognate matter wherein inaction of the Election Officer in
proceeding further with the election process after having published
the final voters list had issued notice whereupon a statement has
been made by the learned Government advocate on the instructions of
the Election Officer that the election programme would be published
immediately. It is likely that the election programme would have been
published by the Election Officer by now.
Learned
advocate, Mr.Rana, appearing for the petitioners has not been able to
explain the reasons for the delay in filing the petition challenging
the rejection order dated 22.2.2010. It is only when a statement is
made on behalf of the Election Officer that he would proceed to
publish the election programme that the present petition has been
filed. This creates suspicion of the petition being a sponsored one
and aimed at delaying the election process in any manner whatsoever.
In
view of the above, we are of the opinion that the petition deserves
to be dismissed on the ground that it has been filed belatedly and
perhaps with an intention of delaying the election process. The
petition therefore deserves to be rejected and is accordingly
dismissed.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.)
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
(binoy)
Top