Election Officer And Deputy ... vs None For

KRIPALSINH KIRITSINH MAHARAUL AND OTHERS Versus ELECTION OFFICER AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND OTHERS ====================================== Appearance :

MR VC VAGHELA for Petitioners.

None for Respondents.

====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 09/11/2012 ORAL ORDER (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)

1. The petition is placed before this Court for admission by special order of Honourable the Chief Justice, after reference by the other Bench on 7.11.2012. Learned counsel, Mr.V.C.Vaghela, has argued for admission of the petition and grant of interim relief to the effect that agenda dated 4.11.2012 issued by respondent no.1 to hold meeting of the managing committee of the Baroda District Milk Producers Union Limited, in which meeting held today under Section 145 (Z) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") the Chairman­Vice Chairman is to be elected. Admittedly, the petitioners have been elected as members of the managing committee of aforesaid Union in the year 2009 and, subject to dispute about the dates among the parties, the first meeting of the committee was held on 11.11.2009. Therefore, according to the express provisions of Section 74­C (2) of the Act, the petitioners are entitled to hold office, prima facie, only till 11.11.2012. However, it was vehemently argued by learned counsel, Mr.Vaghela that in view of the circulars issued by the State Chief Electoral Officer, the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman could not SCA/15334/2012 2/2 ORDER be held and even meeting for that purpose could not have been convened. He also alleged that the officers of the Cooperation Department of the State Government have been adopting double standards for preventing elections in certain local authorities and cooperative societies, while permitting the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman in the present case.

2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances emerging from perusal of the petition as also the affidavit­in­reply filed today on behalf of respondent no.4, it prima facie appears that the petitioners are not entitled to continue in office directly or indirectly beyond 11.11.2012 and preventing meeting of newly elected managing committee may not be sustainable in law insofar as it is required to be held in accordance with bylaws of the Union.

3. In the above facts and in view of fair statement made on behalf of respondent no.4 that the Court may grant limited interim relief for the office bearers or elected members of the new committee not to take charge till 11.11.2012; and in view of other allegations and averments made in the petition, the petition is admitted and interim relief prayed in the petition is not granted. However, it is directed that the office bearers proposed to be elected in the meeting held today shall not take charge till 11.11.2012. Rule returnable on 27.11.2012. Learned counsel, Mr.B.S.Patel, waives service for respondent no.4. Learned AGP waives service for respondent nos.1 and 2. Direct service for respondent no.3 is permitted.

(D.H.Waghela, J.) (Z.K.Saiyed, J.) *malek