Gujarat High Court
The Chandroda Dudh Utpadak Sahakari ... vs State Of Gujarat on 24 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15887/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15887 of 2025
==========================================================
THE CHANDRODA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIR THAKORE SR. COUNSEL with MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR G. H. VIRK , LD. GP with MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI AGP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4
MR P. K. JANI SR. COUNSEL with SHIVANG P JANI(8285) for the
Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The affidavit-in-replies and the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the parties are taken on record.
2. By the present Special Civil Application, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certioarari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed by respondent No.3-election officer at Annexure-
A to the petition.
(B) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing respondent No.3 election officer to include the name of petitioner No.2 in the voters list of Chansma-Becharji constituency for the election of Mehsana District Co- operative Milk Producers' Union Limited and thereby be pleased to permit petitioner No.2 to vote as a delegate of the petitioner No.1-society in the election of respondent No.5-Union.
Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:01:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15887/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition,
the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the respondent No.3- election officer and thereby be pleased to permit the petitioner No.2 to vote as a delegate of the petitioner No.1-Society from the Chansma-Becharji constituency for the election of respondent No.5-Union.
(D) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit, in the interest of justice."
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner No.1 is a Cooperative Society registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and its registration No.Se-30181/1998. The petitioner No.1 society is also a member of the respondent No.5 Mehsana District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Limited, which is a Federal Society and is specified within the meaning of Section 74(C) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The elections to the respondent No.5 Union is held by the Collector, who has appointed the respondent No.3 Deputy Collector as Election Officer. The petitioner No.1 society is a member of the respondent No.5 Union and the members of the petitioner No.1 society, who are milk producers, deposit the milk collected from their cattle through the petitioner No.1 society to the respondent No.5 Union. That the petitioner No.2 applied to the petitioner No.1 society for being inducted as member vide application dated 01.04.2023. The members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 Society in its meeting dated 07.04.2023 resolved to induct the petitioner No.2 as a member of the society and accordingly, the share certificate came to be issued to the petitioner No.2. Thereafter, the elections to the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 society for the term of five years for the period 2023-2024 to 2027-2028 Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:01:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15887/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined was held in the month of July, 2023 and 11 members were declared and elected by the Election Officer which came to be duly approved by the General Body. That thereafter, one of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 society viz. Nagori Fatimaben Hussainbhai submitted her resignation from the Managing Committee and upon such vacancy being created, the petitioner No.1 society held the elections for the vacant seat and the petitioner No.2 came to be elected uncontested to the said vacant seat. Accordingly, the petitioner No.2 became the member of the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 society from 20.04.2024, which came to be approved by the General Body on 16.07.2024.
3.1 That the elections to the respondent No.5 Union became due and therefore, the public notice dated 24.09.2025 came to be issued calling upon resolutions for the names of representatives/delegates of the member societies for representing the society and participating in the elections of the respondent No.5 Union. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 society sent the resolution dated 01.10.2025, whereby the petitioner No.2 was nominated to represent the petitioner No.1 society in the elections to the respondent No.5 Union. On receipt of the said resolution, the respondent No.5 Union, vide letter dated 06.10.2025, objected to the name of the petitioner No.2 on the ground that the petitioner No.2 is not a resident of Village Chandroda and therefore, could not have been inducted as member of the petitioner No.1 society and that the petitioner No.2 has also not deposited the milk for at least 180 days and 700 liters as required by bye-laws. On the basis of the said letter of the respondent No.5 Union, the Special Auditor (Milk) also issued a letter dated 07.10.2025 stating that the petitioner Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:01:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15887/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined No.2 is not eligible to be nominated to participate in the elections to the respondent No.5 Union. The petitioner No.1 society was called upon by the letter dated 06.10.2025 pointing out that since the delegate nominated by it was not eligible as per the bye-laws of the respondent No.5 Union, the petitioner No.1 society may appoint another delegate in conformity with the bye-laws of the respondent No.5 Union before 5.00PM on 08.10.2025. It was also pointed out to the petitioner No.1 society that in case, no name is received, the petitioner No.1 society and its delegate will not be considered eligible as voter in the elections to the respondent No.5 Union. That since the said communication was not replied by the petitioners, the name of the petitioners was included in the disqualified members' list. The petitioners herein thereafter raised an objection before the Collector to include the name of the petitioners in the disqualified members' list. The said objection came to be rejected by the Election Officer on the ground that the delegate appointed by the petitioner No.1 society did not conform with the eligibility criteria under the bye-laws of the respondent No.5 Union and further that the petitioner No.2 was not eligible as delegate of the petitioner No.1 society in as much as the petitioner No.2 was not a resident of the Village Chandroda and she had not supplied the requisite amount of milk as stipulated in the bye-laws of the petitioner No.1 society.
4. The learned senior counsel Mr. Mihir Thakore for the petitioners submits that the Election Officer has purely travelled beyond his authority and jurisdiction by rejecting the claim of the petitioner No.2 for inclusion in the voters' list. He submits that the petitioner No.2 was a valid member of the petitioner No.1 society and the Election Officer could not have gone into the resolution Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:01:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15887/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined passed by the petitioner No.1 society to decide the validity and legality of the resolution or eligibility of the petitioner No.2 to be a member of the petitioner No.1 society. He submits that the powers of the Election Officer are enumerated in Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1982 and the Election Officer has no adjudicatory role. The learned counsel submits that Rule 4(3) of the Rules only permit the specified society to go into the eligibility of the member society in terms of the Act, Rules and bye-laws of the specified society. He submits that in the present case, the Election Officer could not have decided the validity of the membership of the petitioner No.2 in respect of the petitioner No.1 society. The learned senior counsel submits that the issue in respect of eligibility of the petitioner No.2 to become the member of the petitioner No.1 society can be decided only by the Registrar under Section 23 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act or by the Board of Nominees under Section 96 of the Act. The learned senior counsel submits that the Election Officer has erroneously gone into the irrelevant details to disqualify the petitioners. He submits that the petitioner No.1 society had resolved to name the petitioner No.2 as its delegate and the petitioner No.2 was validly elected as member of the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 society. He submits that the Election Officer ought to have included the name of the petitioners in the qualified members' list. The learned senior counsel submits that the documents produced on record show that the petitioners were eligible for inclusion in the voters' list for the elections to the respondent No.5 Union. The learned senior counsel submits that in the audit report dated 24.09.2025 submitted by the auditor, the petitioner No.2 is shown as primary member of the petitioner No.1 society as well as a committee member and fulfilling all the Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:01:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15887/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined conditions of the membership. He submits that the audit is conducted by an officer from the office of the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and therefore, the audit report ought to have been accepted by the respondent No.3 Election Officer and he could not have disqualified the petitioners by excluding their names from the voters' list. The learned senior counsel submits that the impugned order is based on invalid reasons and that the same is not supported by the documents which were produced by the petitioners in their support. The learned senior counsel submits that the respondent No.5 Union had no authority to object to the claim of the petitioner No.2 society for being included in the voters' list. He submits that the respondent No.5 Union can only object to the member society for being included in the voters' list and cannot object to its delegate. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel has relied upon following judgments:-
"(i) Hirabhai Jesangbhai Khasor vs. Election Officer and Deputy Collector and ors. [2009(1) GLH 176]
(ii) Amarshibhai Mohanbhai Kagathara vs. State of Gujarat [2021 SCC online Guj 2289]
(iii) Kanubhai Manibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat [2015(0) JX (Guj) 354]
(iv) Union Territory of Ladakh vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference [2023 (12) Scale 389]
(v) Maganbhai Amratbhai Chaudhary vs. State of Gujarat [2011 (0) JX(Guj) 602] Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:01:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15887/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined
(vi) Lilabhai Ranabhai Desai vs. Pirabhai Valabhai Desai [2002 (3) GCD 2482]
5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Mr. P. K. Jani appearing for the respondent No.5 Union submits that in the present case, the election programme has already been declared and the last date for filing the nomination for the elections to the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5 union is 24.11.2025. He submits that it is well settled position of law that once the election programme has been declared and is underway, the Court should not interfere and that the remedy for the aggrieved party is to initiate appropriate proceedings in law. He submits that even otherwise, the petitioner No.2 is not a resident of Village Chandroda and she is an elected Sarpanch of Village Surpura and it is also clearly established beyond doubt that the petitioner No.2 is not a resident of Village Chandroda. He submits that the basic qualification for membership of the petitioner No.1 society is that the person ought to be a resident of Village Chandroda. He submits that in the present case, the petitioner No.2 is making a false assertion that she is a resident of Village Chandroda. He submits that even the accommodation of the petitioner No.2 in Village Chandroda cannot be accepted since the bye-laws of the petitioner No.1 society mandate that the member has to be normally a resident of Village Chandroda. Moreover, the learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner No.2 has also not supplied the requisite amount of milk as required under the bye- laws of the petitioner No.1 Society. Further, the documents as submitted by the petitioner No.1 society with the respondent No.5 Union show that the petitioner No.2 was never a member of the petitioner No.1 till 31.05.2025. As per the bye-laws of the Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:01:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15887/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined respondent No.5 Union, any person nominated as delegate has to be a member of the Managing Committee of the Primary Society for a period of one year and should be a primary member of the society for a period of two years. In the present case, the petitioner No.2 is not fulfilling both the conditions as required under the bye-laws in view of the documents which have been submitted by the petitioner No.1 society itself to the respondent No.5 Union. He submits that the said discrepancy was brought to the notice of the petitioner No.1 society with a request to appoint an eligible delegate within a period of two days, however the petitioner society has failed to reply to the said communication and therefore, the petitioner No.1 society came to be included in the list of disqualified members. The learned senior counsel submits that the duly certified record submitted by the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 society with the respondent No.5 Union shows that the petitioner No.2 was not a member of the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 society as on 31.03.2025. The learned senior counsel submits that the documents, which have been submitted with the respondent No.5 Union by the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 society, are duly signed and certified by the members of the Managing Committee and the claim of the petitioners is not proved from the said documents. He submits that the record, as submitted to the respondent No.5 Union and available with them, falsifies the case of the petitioners. He submits that the record relied upon by the petitioners are created only to give the status to the petitioner No.2 so that her name can be recommended to contest and vote in the elections. The learned senior counsel submits that the present Writ Petition also raises disputed questions of facts since the documents relied upon by the petitioners are contrary to the documents submitted by the petitioner society to the respondent No.5 Union.
Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:01:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15887/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined
He, therefore, submits that the present Special Civil Application be dismissed. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court dated 27.11.1985 in Letters Patent Appeal No.382 of 1985, wherein it has been held that once the process of election has started, there should not be any interference with the same and if there is statutory remedy is available, intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be avoided.
6. The learned Government Pleader Mr. G. H. Virk appearing for the respondent No.3 Election Officer submits that by the communication dated 07.10.2025, the Special Auditor informed the petitioner No.1 society about the discrepancy in the records. He submits that the petitioners herein have not offered any response to the said communication. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners had initially challenged the said communication dated 07.10.2025 by filing the Special Civil Application No.14319 of 2025, but the same came to be withdrawn by the petitioners on 18.11.2025. That thereafter, the communication dated 08.11.2025 came to be addressed by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner society as per Rule 4(3) of the Rules, 1982. He submits that the provisions of the Act requires that the provisional list of voters has to include the members as on the date of drawing out of the accounts of the year. He submits that on plain analysis of the record available with the office of the respondent No.3, the record relied upon by the petitioners is contrary and cannot be relied upon. He submits that the documents pertaining to the petitioner No.1 society show that the petitioner No.2 is a permanent resident of Village Surpura and the said address is indicated in all the vital documents like Election Card, Adhar Card etc. The learned counsel submits that Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:01:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15887/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined the documents, as available with the respondent No.3, show that the petitioner No.2 is ineligible to become a primary member of the petitioner No.1 society and also as delegate of the petitioner No.1 society. The learned counsel submits that a perusal of the particulars of the Annual General Meeting of the petitioner No.1 society as on July 2025 reflect that in all, the petitioner No.1 society has 97 members, however, in the record available with the petitioner society, the petitioner No.2's membership is shown to be 98, which is more than the official number as per the record. He submits that the impugned order has been passed based on the documents available with the authorities and the same have been submitted by the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 society. He, therefore, submits that the present Special Civil Application be dismissed. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions :-
(i) Shaji K.Joseph vs. V. Vishwanath and ors.[(2016) 4 SCC 429]
(ii) Harakhbai Haribhai Patel vs. S S Baria [2003 Lawsuit (Guj) 302]
(iii) Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. [(2001) 8 SCC 509].
7. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, perused the documents and considered the submissions.
8. In the present case, the parties have relied upon two sets of the documents submitted by the petitioner No.1 society. One set of Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:01:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15887/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined documents is supplied to the respondent No.5 Union for the purpose of conducting the elections to its Managing Committee. Moreover, the said set of documents as being relied upon by the petitioner No.1 society shows the petitioner No.2 as its eligible delegate for the elections. It is not in dispute that by the communication dated 06.10.2025, it was informed to the petitioner No.1 society that the delegate nominated by it was not in accordance with the bye-laws of the society, Act or Rules and therefore, the petitioner No.1 society was called upon to appoint the delegate in terms of the provisions of the bye-laws and intimate the same by 5.00pm on 08.10.2025 or else, the resolution nominating the petitioner No.2 as delegate shall not be accepted. Despite the said communication, the petitioners have not replied to the said communication. In the present case, the documents relied upon by the petitioners as well as the respondent authorities are contrary to each other. Further, it is pertinent to note that both the sets of documents submitted by the petitioner No.1 society raise highly disputed questions of facts. This Court is not inclined to go into the veracity of the said documents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Bye-law 48 of the respondent No.5 Union provides for the eligibility criteria for nomination as delegate of a primary society as well as eligibility for being elected as Director of the respondent No.5 Union. The nomination of delegate has to be in accordance with the said bye-laws. In the present case, the nomination of the petitioner No.2 does not seem to be in accordance with the bye-laws of the respondent No.5 Union.
10. The judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:01:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15887/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined the present case and will not support the contentions of the petitioners.
11. It is a well settled position of law by catena of decisions that once the election process has been initiated, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere when there is statutory remedy is available. The certain actions taken by the respondent No.3 in the course of holding of elections can be challenged by way of an appropriate statutory remedy.
12. The impugned judgment and order is based on cogent reasons and the documents produced on record. Further, the reasons, as recorded by the respondent No.3 in the impugned order, are based on the records which have been submitted to the respondent No.5 union by the petitioner society itself. Moreover, the communication sent by the respondent No.5 union calling upon the petitioners to explain the discrepancy has not been replied by them till date.
13. The Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. It is clarified that the petitioners are at liberty to pursue their remedy under the Statute. The petitioners shall also be at liberty to raise all the contentions as available in law.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) cmk Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:01:56 IST 2025