Gujarat High Court
The Manjipura Milk Producer ... vs State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11656 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
THE MANJIPURA MILK PRODUCER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
CHIRAG A PARIKH(8237) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VC VAGHELA(1720) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR SHAH, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR
JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 25/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court with the following reliefs.
"A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;Page 1 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the audit classification certificate issued by the respondent No.4 herein dated 31.05.2025 at Annexure-A to this petition;
C. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.5 not to reject the nomination form of the representative of the petitioner society from contesting the election of Kheda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. from Nadiad Constituency for the election to be held on 12.09.2025;x.18 D. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the audit classification certificate dated 31.05.2025 at Annexure-A to this petition;
E. Be pleased to grant any other relief/s as may deem fit proper, in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts, as per the petitioner, giving rise to the present petition can be stated as under.
2.1 The petitioner is a primary level milk Page 2 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined producer cooperative society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The petitioner - society is registered in 1966 and its registration number is 9782. It is a primary level milk producing cooperative society and is affiliated to the Kheda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. The petitioner society has about 620 members. The petitioner society has regularly supplied milk to the District Milk Union and its accounts are regularly audited and is receiving A-Audit classification.
2.2 The Kheda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. is a specified society registered under the provisions of the Act, 1961. The election of the union is held as per the Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1982. It is a society as per the provisions of section 74C of the Act. The term of the union is five years. The last Page 3 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined election of the union was held on 31st August, 2020 and its term is expiring on 31st August, 2025 and therefore, its election is to be completed on or before 31st August, 2025.
2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that as per Rule 3A of the Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1982, the voters list is to be prepared as per the position prevailing on 31st March, 2025 and as per the provisions of byelaw No.17.1.3, any representative of a member society wants to contest the election, such society should have obtained audit classification 'A' or 'B' during the last audit.
2.4 It is the case of the petitioner that audit of all the previous years of the petitioner society has been completed and the petitioner society had obtained 'A' audit classification for all these years. Even, the audit classification from 01st April, 2023 to 31st March, 2025 was held Page 4 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined on 21st April, 2025 and the petitioner society was awarded 'A' audit classification. 2.5 The petitioner states that the petitioner society received letter dated 12th May, 2025 from the office of the respondent No.3 stating that Shri Ankitkumar Patel and Shri Rajendra S. Patel have asked for re-audit of the society and therefore, the Chairman/Secretary was asked to remain present before the respondent No.3 on 16th May, 2025 with all the relevant documents.
2.6 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner remained present before the respondent No.3 and cooperated in the proceedings. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 by order dated 26th May, 2025 appointed respondent No.4 to carry out the re-audit of the society between 28th May, 2025 and 31st May, 2025. 2.7 It is the case of the petitioner that Page 5 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined re-audit was carried out and completed on 31 st May, 2025 but, the classification certificate was handed over to the petitioner on 08 th August, 2025. Therefore, the petitioner made an application on 11th August, 2025 to supply the copy of marksheet to the petitioner, which was given to the petitioner on 12th August, 2025. 2.8 It is the case of the petitioner that in the audit, certain defects were found and by order dated 21st July, 2025, it was ordered to initiate proceedings directly under Section 93 of the Act.
2.9 It is the case of the petitioner that preliminary voters list was published for election of Kheda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. The Vice Chairman of the petitioner raised objection against the name of the petitioner and requested to delete the name of the petitioner from the final voters list to be published for Nadiad Block of the Union. Page 6 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined 2.10 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was issued notice and therefore, the society appeared before the Election Officer and filed its reply against the objection. 2.11 The Election Officer being satisfied, rejected the objection and continued the name of the petitioner society the final voters list published on 12th August, 2025.
2.12 It is the case of the petitioner that the election programme has been published on 12th August, 2025 and as per the election programme, the nominations are to be filed between 20 th August, 2025 and 28th August, 2025. The scrutiny of the nomination is to be held on 29th August, 2025 and the list of valid nomination is to be published on 29th August, 2025. The last date for withdrawal of the nomination is 30th August, 2025. The list of final contesting candidates is to be published on 30th August, 2025 at 1700 hours. The election is to be held on 10th September, 2025 and Page 7 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined the counting of votes to be held on 12th September, 2025.
2.13 It is the case of the petitioner that in the re-audit, certain queries have been raised which are technical in nature and does not show any substantial defects. It is further the case of the petitioner that the guidelines are provided about the manner and method applying the audit criteria which can be awarded to any society. As per the guidelines, the society getting more than, out of total, 60 marks would deserve class 'A', society getting marks between 50 and 59 is entitled for class 'B', society getting marks between 40 and 49 is entitled for class 'C' and the society getting marks below 40 would get class 'D'.
2.14 It is thus the case of the petitioner that although all throughout the petitioner society has been awarded classification Grade 'A' and even for the period between 01st April, 2023 Page 8 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined and 31st March, 2025, after audit, the society was awarded classification Grade 'A'. It is the further case of the petitioner that however, only with a view to see that the petitioner society does not get qualify to participate in the election, under the guise of re-audit, respondent authorities have awarded classification Grade 'C' to the petitioner society under the political influence and with mala fide intention.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition for the aforesaid prayers.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.V.C. Vaghela for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General Ms.Manisha Lavkumar Shah with learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jay Trivedi for the respondent-State and its authorities.
Page 9 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined
5. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 5.1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jay Trivedi waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner, while questioning the classification certificate, has made following submissions. 6.1 Learned advocate, mainly emphasised on the aspect of mala fide intention on the part of the State authorities in awarding classification certificate as Grade 'C' to the petitioner society. Learned advocate submitted that the present petitioner society from its inception getting certification either 'A" or 'B'. According to learned advocate, recently also for the period from 01st April, 2023 to 31st March, Page 10 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined 2025, after the audit, society was awarded category 'A' classification and thereafter immediately, under the guise of provisions of Section 84(5) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, on an application by Rajendra S. Patel and Ankitkumar Patel who are the committee members of the society, proceedings for re-audit sought to be initiated. After the said re-audit, with mala fide intention, the society was awarded Grade 'C' so as to see that the petitioner society does not become qualify to take part in the election of the Kheda District Milk Producers' Union Ltd.
6.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner, to substantiate the contents of mala fide intention, submitted that after the re-audit got over, certificate was not issued to the petitioner society on the same day. However, the said certificate was withheld for two months so that the petitioner society may not get sufficient Page 11 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined time to dispute and/or challenge the said certificate. According to learned advocate, such a design is executed by the State authorities only under the political influence and with a view to see that the petitioner society is kept away from the election.
6.3 Learned advocate further submitted that the certificate was only issued on 08 th August, 2025 i.e. after the date on which the election was declared on 02nd August, 2025. According to learned advocate, initiating proceedings under the guise of Section 84(5) of the Act and thereafter withholding the certificate for unexplainable delay speaks volume about the mala fide action on part of the respondent authorities. Thus, learned advocate requested this Court to allow the petition as prayed for. 6.4 According to learned advocate, as per Rule 38B(2) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Rules, 1965, it is the duty on part of the Page 12 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined authority to award audit classification the moment the audit is over. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that in the present case although the audit was over somewhere on 31st May, 2025, however the certificate was issued only on 08th August, 2025 i.e. after delay of almost two months. Thus, according to learned advocate, therefore, the certificate issued at such a belated stage is in violation of Rule 38B(2) of the Rules, 1965 and thereby the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6.5 To substantiate the aforesaid contention, learned advocate relied on the following judgments - (i) Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar [(2000) 8 SCC 216], (ii) Shrutbandhu H. Popat v. State of Gujarat [2007 (3) GLR 1942], (iii) Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari v. State of Gujarat [2007 (3) GLH 57], (iv) Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad [(2012) 4 SCC 407], (v) Varshaben Pramodkumar Page 13 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined Kothari v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.10951 of 2014 decided on 02nd September, 2014 and (vi) Jodiya Kheralu Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [ 2020 (0) AIJEL-HC 242604].
6.6 By making above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has requested this Court to allow the petition as prayed for.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing the present petition, has made following submissions.
7.1 Learned AAG, at the outset, has made two preliminary objections. Firstly, it was submitted by learned AAG that the present petition has been filed by the Manjipura Milk Producer Cooperative Society Limited through its Chairman Shri Kaushikbhai Somabhai Parmar. Learned AAG submitted that along with the memo of petition, there is no resolution annexed by the society Page 14 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined authorising the present petitioner to file the present petition nor any pleading with regard to said authorisation is made in the memo of petition. Thus, the petition filed by the society through its Chairman is without any authority and thereby the same deserves to be dismissed. The second preliminary objection raised by the learned AAG is with regard to availability of alternative remedy by way of Appeal under Section 155 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. Learned AAG, therefore, submitted that since the petitioner has alternative efficacious statutory remedy available, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be entertained and accordingly, deserves to be dismissed.
7.2 Learned AAG submitted that the main prayer of the petitioner with regard to challenge to audit classification certificate itself is not tenable in eye of law inasmuch as, the said Page 15 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined certificate is based on the audit report and the same has not been challenged and/or disputed by the petitioner. Learned AAG further submitted that the petitioner has also not challenged the order passed by the competent authority for re- audit. Learned AAG further pointed out that as a matter of fact the petitioner upon being served notice under Section 84(5) of the Act, appeared before the authority and as such not raised any objection against the re-audit. She further submitted that as such in the Rojkam, petitioner along with seven other members of the society, appeared and made signature whereby re-audit was decided to be carried out. According to learned AAG, now, at this stge, having appeared before the authority in the proceedings under Section 84(5) of the Act and having not raised any objection with regard to re-audit, at this stage, without challenging the audit report, prayer with regard to certificate classification based on such audit cannot be allowed. She, therefore, Page 16 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined requested this Court to dismiss the petition with cost.
7.3 Learned AAG further submitted that so far as delay in issuing the classification certificate is concerned, it cannot be said to be of any mala fide intention. Learned AAG further submitted that during the said period, in all 916 societies were audited and thereby it took some time to issue classification certificate. According to learned AAG, even otherwise, as per Rule 38B(2) of the Rules, 1965, there is no statutory and/or mandatory time limit prescribed within which the certificate to be issued once the audit is over. Learned AAG further submitted that merely because there was delay in issuing certificate, it would not be viewed as any mala fide intention on part of the authorities. 7.4 By making above submissions, learned AAG requested this Court to dismiss the petition with cost.
Page 17 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined
8. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. I have also gone through the materials produced on record. No other and/or further submissions have been canvassed by learned advocates for the respective parties except mentioned hereinabove.
9. Having considered the submissions of the respective learned advocates, following facts emerged from the available record.
(i) The present petition filed by the society through its Chairman Shri Kaushikbhai Parmar without any authority of law, nor any pleading to that effect was made about any such authority is granted by the society.
(ii) Learned advocate for the petitioner admitted that he has alternative remedy under Section 155 of the Act, 1961 though in the petition it is averred that no alternative remedy is available to the petitioner.
Page 18 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined
(iii) The petitioner has not challenged the audit report on the basis of which the petitioner was awarded Grade 'C' certificate. The petitioner has also not disputed and/or raised any objection against re-audit under Section 84(5) of the Act.
(iv) From perusal of the Rojkam drawn during the proceedings under Section 84(5) it appears that petitioner has not made any submissions against the order of re-audit. On the contrary, petitioner and other seven members of the society have made their signature as if they are inviting re-audit.
10. Considering the submissions of learned advocates for the respective parties and the facts of the case, the question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether classification certificate issued by the respondent authority can be said to be illegal on the ground of delay and mala fides? Page 19 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined
11. To decide the aforesaid question, at the outset, relevant Rule pertaining to classification certificate deserves to be considered.
"38B. Auditors to award audit classification.- (1) The Registrar may, from time to time, keeping in view the efficiency of management, financial position and such other factors, prepare the guidelines for determining the status of a society.
(2) Every auditor shall, after
competing the audit of a society
determine and award the audit
classification to the society in
accordance with the guidelines
prepared by the Registrar, from time to time, under sub-rule (1)."
11.1 The aforesaid Rule empowers the Registrar to prepare the guidelines for determining the status of a society based on society's efficiency of management, financial position and such other factors. The auditor qualified shall, after completing the audit of the society, determine and award the audit classification of the society in accordance with Page 20 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined the guidelines so prepared by the Registrar.
12. Considering the said Rule, it appears that the entire process of determining and awarding of the audit classification to the society is divided into two parts. In the first part, it is the Registrar who has to prepare the guidelines. The role of the Registrar is thereby limited qua preparation of guidelines determining the status of a society based on efficiency of management, financial position and such other factors which the Registrar deems it necessary. In the second part, it is the qualified empanelled auditor who carries out independent audit of a society and thereafter comparing such audit with the guidelines prepared by the Registrar, auditor gives audit classification to the society concerned. In the entire Rule, there is no time specified for issuance of certificate once the audit is complete. Accordingly, in absence of any statutory prescribed time limit, Page 21 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined it would not be possible for this Court to hold that certificate, if issued after some delay, by the auditor is beyond any limitation.
13. Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal position, let us test the contention of the petitioner with regard to mala fide intention behind not issuing audit certificate immediately and issued after around two months. As stated hereinabove, in Rule 38B of the Rules, there is no time prescribed for issuance of certificate after completion of audit. In absence of any prescribed time, to test the contention of mala fide, one has to see the period of delay and cause behind it. If the period of delay is reasonable and rational, the intention with regard to mala fide shall not be inferred. In my view, for attributing mala fide, scrutiny of action has to be in its threadbare. In the present case, I have considered length of delay and the cause of delay. It was necessitated Page 22 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined because allegation was made that the certificate was intentionally withheld for certain time so that the petitioner may not get an opportunity to challenge the same. Hence, on inquiry, this Court found that during that period, in all, 916 societies were audited and while issuing audit certification, the auditor has to compare the audit of the society along with guidelines issued by the Registrar for the purpose of awarding marks. This Court believes that the said procedure requires mindful work, rather adopting casual approach by the auditor. In such eventuality, in my view, if petitioner was awarded audit certification after two months of the audit which coincidentally overlapping with the election process and petitioner getting less time to challenge the same cannot be, per se, said to be of any mala fide intention. 13.1 True it is that in the peculiar fact, the petitioner got very less time to challenge Page 23 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined the audit certification, but in that circumstances, instead of approaching for alternative remedy under Section 155, petitioner could have challenged the certificate on the ground of incorrect marking and/or want of proper application of guidelines of the Registrar with regard to marking system. In the present case, petitioner has only challenged the certificate. Neither the petitioner has challenged decision of re-audit, nor disputed the actual process of re- audit nor even disputed with regard to marking system adopted by the authorities. Therefore, in absence of any such foundational challenge, in my considered opinion, straightway challenging the certificate only on the ground of mala fide would not be tenable in eye of law. I say so because, the certificate is based on re-audit and prescribed guidelines with regard to marking method. Thus, unless there is a challenge either against re-audit process or marking system, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the Page 24 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined certificate only. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the aspect of classification certificate without there being any concrete challenge to the audit or re-audit process and/or application of marking system based on the guidelines issued by the Registrar.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, prayer with regard to issuing writ or direction upon the respondent No.5 for not to reject the nomination of the petitioner society from contesting the election of Kheda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. From Nadiad constituency for the election to be held on 12th September, 2025 pales into insignificance. To file nomination form to contest the election, the society must have either 'A' or 'B' class of audit certificate. Admittedly, the petitioner society has been awarded 'C' class audit certificate by which the petitioner became Page 25 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined unqualified for the purpose of contesting election. Thus, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the authorities to accept the nomination form of the petitioner. In other words, by way of writ jurisdiction, no writ and/or direction can be issued for to act which is otherwise not permissible in the eye of law.
15. With regard to the decisions cited by learned advocate for the petitioner, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the ratio laid down thereunder. However, the facts of the present petition are materially different and thereby those decisions, in my view, are of no help.
16. For the foregoing discussion, petition deserves no consideration and is hereby rejected.
17. Before parting, this Court has found that there is no time limit prescribed in the Rule to issue audit certificate after the audit Page 26 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11656/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined is over. Hence, it is desirable and if felt appropriate by the State Government, to issue Circular/Guidelines to all the empanelled Auditors to issue certificate within a specified time limit after the audit is complete. The said necessity of prescribing time limit is desirable so as to mitigate the scope of any mala fide action either at the instance of Auditor and/or of any authority. Issuance of guidelines with regard to prescribing time limit by way of Circular would be a step further to remove any grey area in which any such mala fide design can be created.
Let this decision be sent to the Cooperative Minister and the Principal Secretary for its necessary consideration.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) ANUP Page 27 of 27 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 00:03:31 IST 2025