Ashokkumar Gangdas Kanjiva vs. Director Of Agricultural Marketing And Rural Finance

Held

The Court found no substance in the petitioner's submission that the Authorised Officer failed to consider the objections and passed orders without reasons. The Court noted that the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit documents to support his objections against sixty traders but failed to produce them. The petitioner's request for the Authorised Officer to obtain documents from other authorities was not in consonance with the rules. The Court also relied on the Full Bench decision in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited, holding that inclusion or exclusion of names in a voters' list does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting interference by the High Court under Article 226. The Court observed that the petitioner filed the petition only against four traders out of sixty after his objections were rejected for want of material, suggesting ill-motive or malafide intention. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashokkumar Gangdas Kanjiva, a trader and license holder of APMC Jamjodhpur, filed a petition challenging orders dated 01.08.2018 and 09.08.2018 passed by the Authorised Officer (Respondent No. 3). The petitioner sought to remove respondents No. 4 to 7 from the provisional voters' list for the APMC Jamjodhpur election. The petitioner's objection was that these traders lacked GST registration and Shops and Establishments Act licenses. The Authorised Officer requested documents from the petitioner, but the petitioner asked the officer to obtain them from concerned authorities. The objections were rejected for lack of supporting material. The petitioner then filed this petition after the revised voters' list was published, challenging the rejection of his objections.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Authorised Officer failed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner against sixty traders and passed orders without assigning reasons, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the inclusion or exclusion of names in a voters' list constitutes an extraordinary circumstance requiring High Court interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Authorised Officer did not consider his objections against sixty traders and passed orders without providing any reasons. The petitioner also contended that the Authorised Officer should have obtained necessary documents from concerned officers instead of demanding them from the petitioner. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit documents but failed to do so. They also relied on a Full Bench decision of the High Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited vs. R.D. Rohit, Authorised Officer and Cooperative Officer (2006(1) GCD 211) which held that voters' list disputes are not extraordinary circumstances for High Court intervention.