The Bhataman (Moti) Juth Telibiya ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 14333 Guj

      C/SCA/11717/2021                                     ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11717 of 2021

==========================================================
THE BHATAMAN (MOTI) JUTH TELIBIYA UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDALI
                     LIMITED & 96 other(s)
                           Versus
               STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPEN DESAI(2481) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,
33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,5,50,51,52,53,54,55,5
6,57,58,59,6,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,7,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,
8,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,9,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97
ANIL H PATEL(7832) for the Respondent(s) No. 6,7
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
HEMALI D SONI(8450) for the Respondent(s) No. 6,7
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN


                                 Date : 17/09/2021

                                  ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Dipen Desai, learned Advocate appearing for

the petitioners, Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant

Government Pleader and Mr. V.C. Vaghela appearing for the

respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Issue Rule returnable on

30.09.2021.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are

traders operating in the market area of Agriculture Market

Produce Committee, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

APMC") and are engaged in the business of sale and

purchase of agricultural produce in the market area. The

election of the APMC, Palanpur was declared by the

respondent No. 2-Director on 19.06.2021. The preliminary

voters list was published on 06.07.2021 wherein the names of

the petitioners were included in the traders' constituency.

Aggrieved, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 submitted their

objections against the inclusion of the names of the

petitioners and other traders to the tune of 181 on

19.07.2021. According to the petitioners, the copy of the

objections raised by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have not

been given to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners

that the Authorised Officer, was obliged to issue notice calling

for response of the petitioners to state their objections;

however, the Authorised Officer did not issue any notice and

asked the respondent no. 5-Market Committee to produce the

details as regards the licenses granted by it to the traders.

The market committee had produced the details, inter alia,

that the petitioners are holding licenses since last two years.

The Authorised Officer without issuing any notice to the

petitioners, has straight away passed the order dated

27.07.2021 whereby the names of the petitioners, have been

deleted from the voters list. Being aggrieved, the petitioners,

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

have preferred the captioned writ petition.

3. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned Advocate submitted that the

preliminary voters list was published on 06.07.2021 and the

last date for submitting the objections against the preliminary

voters list was fixed on 20.07.2021. In response whereof, the

respondent nos. 6 and 7 have raised objections against the

inclusion of the names of the petitioners. The Authorised

Officer, upon receipt of the objections, has constituted a team

to undertake the inquiry, which otherwise, the Authorised

Officer himself was obliged to undertake. It is submitted that

such delegation of powers of inquiry to the team, is without

jurisdiction. It is submitted that the team constituted by the

Authorised Officer, submitted its reports dated 23.07.2021

and 24.07.2021 and on the basis whereof, the Authorised

Officer, has passed the order dated 27.07.2021, such action

on the part of the Authorised Officer, is in violation of the

principles of natural justice.

3.1. It is further submitted that Section 59 of the Gujarat

Agricultural Produce and Marketing (Promotion and

Facilitation) Act, 1963 empowers the State Government to

frame Rules and in exercise of such powers, the State

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

Government has framed the Gujarat Agriculture Market

Produce Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of

1965"). Rule 5, makes the provisions for different list of

voters for the purpose of Section 11. Rule 7 deals with

preparation of list of voters for general elections. Clause (ii) of

Rule (1) of Rule 7 requires the market committee to

communicate full names of the traders holding general

licenses in the market area together with the place of

residence of each such trader. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7, provides

that the Authorised Officer within seven days from the date

fixed under sub-rule (1) shall prepare the list of voters as

required by Rule 5 on the basis of the information received

under sub-rule (1), after making such inquiry as he may deem

fit. It is submitted that the term "after making such inquiry as

he may deem fit" obliges the Authorised Officer to undertake

the inquiry. At the same time, there are no powers available to

the Authorised Officer to delegate the inquiry to another

authority. Therefore, as envisaged in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7, it

is the obligation of the Authorised Officer to make inquiry and

the decision has also to be taken by the Authorised Officer.

3.2. It is submitted that the inquiry which is contemplated

under sub-rule (2) of Rule 7, is in the nature of quasi judicial

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

proceedings and therefore the Authorised Officer could not

have passed the order without hearing the petitioners. It is

submitted that undisputedly, the Authorised Officer before

passing the impugned order had never called upon the

petitioners and no hearing was given to them. The petitioners

were not afforded any opportunity to offer their response to

the objections given by the respondent nos. 6 and 7, and

therefore, such action of the Authorised Officer is in violation

of principles of natural justice. It is well settled legal position

that the Authorised Officer is under an obligation to afford an

opportunity of hearing to the person who are sought to be

excluded from the voters list and without hearing such

persons, the order cannot be passed. The issue as regards

offering opportunity of hearing before excluding the names of

the voters from the list is no longer res integra.

3.3. In support of such contention, reliance is placed upon

the decision of this Court in the case of Desai Dharamsinhbahi

Taljabhai versus Babulal Jethalal Patel reported in 1989 (2)

GLR 1195. It is submitted that this Court, has categorically

held that even if sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 does not provide for

opportunity of hearing such requirement should be read in

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8. It has been categorically held that after

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

receiving the applications for amendments or objections, the

Authorised Officer should give an opportunity of being heard

to the persons who are likely to be adversely affected by such

application or objections. In paragraph 11 it has been held

that inviting objections is in the nature of hearing to be given

to the persons who are likely to be affected. It being the

requirement of the principles of natural justice, it has to be

read in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8. It is therefore submitted that

the law is well settled on the aspect of offering opportunity of

hearing to the affected persons before finalizing the voters

list.

3.4. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of

Prahladbhai Shivram Patel and Others vs. Director of

Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance and Others reported

in 1998 (1) GLH 95. It is submitted that this Court, when

found, that despite the law is settled as regards offering

opportunity of hearing to the affected parties by the

Authorised Officer and he having not acted in conformity with

the same, frowned upon the action of the Authorised Officer

and directed the State Authorities to issue a Circular

indicating the aspect of offering opportunity of hearing. It has

been held and observed that the Authorised Officers are

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

deliberately ignoring the decision of the Court and it was

expected of the State Government to bring it to the notice of

all the officers, the interpretation of Rule 8.

3.5. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in

the case of Dhinchda Juth Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited

versus State of Gujarat and Others rendered in Special Civil

Application No. 11306 of 2014. It is submitted that in the said

case, while deleting the names, no opportunity of hearing was

given to the petitioner and its members and this Court, held

the decision, illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of

natural justice. This Court, has referred to the earlier

judgments in the case of Desai Dharamsinhbahi Taljabhai

(supra) so also judgment in the case of Prahladbhai Shivram

Patel and Others (supra) and observed that when the circular

has been issued by the Directors, the Authorised Officer could

not have deleted the names of the members without giving

any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This Court when

found that the action of the authority was not in sync with the

principles laid down by this Court in the two judgments,

quashed and set aside the decision and allowed the petition

with exemplary cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

3.6. Reliance is also placed on the order dated 13.10.2020

passed in Special Civil Application No. 10877 of 2020. In the

said case, the petitioners therein have challenged the action

of the Authorised Officer in deleting the names of the voters

including the names of the petitioners from the voters list of

the traders constituency, without offering any opportunity of

hearing. This Court relied upon the judgments in the case of

Desai Dharamsinhbahi Taljabhai (supra) so also in the case of

Prahladbhai Shivram Patel and Others (supra), and directed

the process of election to be completed and the order passed

by the Authorised Officer was stayed, permitting the

petitioners to vote. However, their votes were directed to be

kept in a sealed cover, and the result of the election was

made subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. It is

submitted that in the said case though the Authorised Officer

had published the notice in the local daily newspaper, the

Court did not accede to the submissions on the count that the

notice which was issued in the daily newspaper was not

having circulation in the market area of the APMC and

therefore it cannot be said that the opportunity of hearing was

afforded. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners is on a

better footing for, in the present case, neither any hearing

was given nor any notice has been issued or published.

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

3.7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has made

several other submissions viz. the nature and scope of the

powers exercised by the quasi judicial authority; the effect of

inquiry by one authority and the passing of the order by

another authority and; the scope of powers of delegation by

the Authorised Officer.

4. However, this Court, is of the opinion that the issue

which goes to the root of the matter is whether the order

dated 27.07.2021 has been passed in violation of principles of

natural justice. This Court with a view to find out as to

whether any opportunity of hearing was given to the

petitioners or not, called upon the learned Assistant

Government Pleader to respond the same. Mr. Krutik Parikh,

learned Assistant Government Pleader, fairly conceded that

no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before

passing the order dated 27.07.2021, however, the action of

the Authorised Officer, has been tried to be justified by raising

the contention that the team was constituted and it had

visited the villages were the petitioners are carrying out their

trading activities. The check-lists were prepared which have

been duly signed by the petitioners and therefore, the

petitioners were very well aware about the inquiry being

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

conducted by the Authorised Officer. It is submitted that if the

check-lists are perused, it carries all the details of the

petitioners, who are traders. As per the check-list, it is clear

that the petitioners are either not having the licenses or have

not paid the cess or are not doing any trading activity. Some

of the petitioners are doing the miscellaneous work; some of

the petitioners are trading in the retail business and so on and

so forth. On the basis of the details indicated in the check-list,

the officers have opined that the names of the traders are

required to be deleted from the voters list. It is therefore

submitted that when the check-list was prepared by the team

deputed by the Authorised Officer and all the details were

clear, and the check-list was signed by the petitioners, there

was no need of observing the principles of natural justice.

4.1. It is next submitted that the number of voters, whose

names were required to be deleted from the voters list were

180 and therefore it was not feasible for the Authorised

Officer to have issued notices to each and every member

considering the time schedule provided in the election

program. It is submitted that since it was not possible for the

Authorised Officer to have visited each and every member, he

had constituted a team consisting of cooperative officers

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

attached to his office and they were deputed to undertake the

exercise of examining the relevant details of the traders in the

preliminary voters list. The inquiry team, recorded the details

provided by the petitioners, in the prescribed form, which

exercise was undertaken in the presence of the traders

followed by the preparation of the detailed inquiry reports

dated 23.07.2021 and 24.07.2021. Considering the inquiry

reports dated 23.07.2021 and 24.07.2021, it has emerged that

out of the total traders whose names were included in the

preliminary voters list, 181 traders did not fulfill the requisite

criteria to qualify to be included in the provisions/final voters

list.

4.2. It is submitted that during the inquiry, it was found that

the petitioners and others are not actually engaged in the sale

and purchase of the noted agricultural produce items and that

they are holding licenses by depositing fees in the market

committee without actually being engaged in the business of

sale and purchase of the noted agricultural produce items.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Vaghela appearing for the

respondent Nos. 6 and 7, while opposing the writ petition and

grant of interim relief submitted that so far as the judgments

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

relied upon by the petitioners are concerned, the principle

needs to be revisited inasmuch as Rules 7 and 8, do not

envisage affording of opportunity of hearing while passing the

order excluding the names of the voters. It is next submitted

that even otherwise, the Authorised Officer before passing the

order has constituted a team which, on the basis of the inquiry

conducted by them, has prepared the reports which speak

volumes about the trading activities undertaken by the

petitioners. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of

Prahladbhai Shivram Patel and Others (supra) to contend that

this Court, though in paragraph 23 has held that observance

of principles of natural justice, is inevitable while passing the

order, in paragraph 24 the Court found the deletion contrary

to the provisions of the statutory rules and regulations.

Therefore, the order of the Authorised Officer in the said case

was not quashed and set aside only on the ground of violation

of principles of natural justice. It is therefore urged that no

error has been committed by the Authorised Officer while

passing the order and interference is not warranted at this

stage.

6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective

parties, the issue which arises for the consideration of this

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

Court is whether the Authorised Officer was right in passing

the order dated 27.07.2021 and whether the petitioners have

made out the case for interim protection.

7. For the aforesaid purpose, at the outset, it is required to

be noted that this Court in the case of Desai Dharamsinhbahi

Taljabhai (supra), in para 11 has observed thus :

"(11) In my opinion what sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 requires is that the Authorised Officer has to publish the preliminary lists of voters and fix a date for inviting objections. After receiving applications for amendment or objections as they are often described he has to republish the said lists alongwith the proposed amendments alterations or deletions and invite objections from the persons likely to be adversely affected by the said proposed amendments alterations or deletions. Inviting such objections is really in the nature of a hearing to be given to the persons who are likely to be affected thereby. This being the requirement of principles of natural justice it has been read in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 and keeping that object in mind it will have to be held that after the second publication of the preliminary lists of voters what is required to be done by the Authorised Officer is to hear persons likely to be affected by the proposed amendments alterations or deletions. He cannot receive or entertain fresh applications for new additions alterations or deletions or fresh objections in that behalf. The Authorised Officer was therefore fully justified in this case in not entertaining fresh objections raised by the aforesaid eight co-operative societies for the first time between 10-10-1985 and 11-10-1985."

8. It has been held that after receiving applications for

amendment or objection and after re-publishing the list

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

alongwith the proposed amendments, alterations or deletions,

invite objections from the persons likely to be adversely

affected. Inviting such objections is really in the nature of

hearing to be given to the persons likely to be affected.

Similarly in the case of Prahladbhai Shivram Patel and Others

(supra) in Paras 12 and 23 it has been observed thus:-

"12. It must be further mentioned here that the order of the authorised officer in deleting the names of the present petitioners is also violative of principles of natural justice. If the provision of Rule 8 as a whole is considered, then it would be quite clear that whenever the authorised officer is considering the question of deleting the name of any voter from the voters' list, he must issue a notice to the said person giving him an opportunity of being heard and then to decide the said objection. In all these petitions, the respondent no. 3 authorised officer has not admittedly given any hearing to any of the petitioners. In one of the affidavits filed by him, he has stated that it was not necessary for him to give hearing. He had personally made inquiries regarding objections and had satisfied himself about correctness of the same. But this approach of the authorised officer is not only against principles of natural justice, but it is in flagrant violation of the decision of this Court in the case of Desai Dharamsinh Taljabhai and others vs. Babulal Jethalal Patel and others, 1989(2) GLR, 1195. In said case, His Lordship, G.T.Nanavati, J who has been elevated to the Apex Court, has laid down the principles regarding following of principles of natural justice and giving hearing to the persons who are to be affected by the order. Paras 11 and 12 of the said judgment read as under:

"11.In my opinion, what sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 requires is that the Authorised Officer has to

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

publish the preliminary lists of voters and fix a date for inviting objections. After receiving applications for amendment or objections, as they are often described, he has to republish the said lists alongwith the proposed amendments, alterations or deletions and invite objections from the persons likely to be adversely affected by the said proposed amendments, alterations or deletions. Inviting such objections is really in the nature of a hearing to be given to the persons who are likely to be affected thereby. This being the requirement of principles of natural justice, it has been read in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8, and keeping that object in mind, it will have to be held that after the second publication of the preliminary lists of voters what is required to be done by the Authorised Officer is to hear persons likely to be affected by the proposed amendments, alterations or deletions. He cannot receive or entertain fresh applications for new additions, alterations or deletions, or fresh objections in that behalf. The Authorised Officer was therefore, fully justified n this case in not entertaining fresh objections raised by the aforesaid eight co-operative societies for the first time between 10.10.85 and 11.10.85.""

13-22. *****

"23. It is also necessary to mention here other provisions of the said Rules of 1965. Under Rule 10, the respondent no.1 has to declare the election under sub-rule (1) and under sub-rule (2) of Rule 10, he has to fix the election programme. I personally feel that when the respondent no.1 is to exercise powers under this rule 10, he must declare the election programme in such a manner that if any person is aggrieved by the decision of the authorised officer regarding his illegal omission or deletion in the voters' list to have recourse to law. As stated earlier, the Rules nowhere make any provision for providing an appeal or Revision against the order of the authorised authority. Therefore, in these

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

circumstances, when the authorised officer is to decide the question of either inclusion or omission of voters from the voters' list, a heavy duty is cast on him to pass a detailed speaking order after giving an opportunity to the persons of being heard and that has been also observed earlier by this Court in the case of 1989(2) GLR, 1195. But it seems that the authorised officers are deliberately ignoring the said decision of this Court.Therefore, it is expected of the respondent no. 1 to bring to the notice of all the persons who have to work as authorised officer the interpretation of Rule 8 in that judgment of this Court and to direct them to act accordingly. Because this deliberate activity on the part of authorised officers to ignore the decision of this Court is unnecessarily flooding this Court with petitions. I would therefore, direct the respondent no.1 to issue a circular to all the persons who are to work as authorised officer to follow the law laid down by this Court and I also make it very clear that if they flout the law laid down by this Court, that act on their part will amount to contempt of Court. In the present situation of political parties, a heavy duty lies on the Executives to act according to law and not to dance to the tunes of politicians. In the instant case, I fail to understand as to how respondent no. 3 could delete the names of voters after he had published the preliminary list on 24.10.97 as well as revised list on 12.11.97 and his further claim that it was not necessary for him to give any hearing the persons whose names were being deleted. As stated earlier, when the respondent no.1 has to fix the programme of election, he should arrange the said programme in such a manner that there will be sufficient time for the parties who are likely to be affected by the decision of the authorised officer to approach the Court in case if the orders passed against them happens to be illegal, contrary to the provisions of

18:51:59 IST 2021 jurisdiction. He has got sufficient time and opportunity as provided by Rule 10 to arrange election programme in that matter."

9. In this case, this Court held that when the Authorised

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

Officer is to decide the question of either inclusion or

omission of the voters from the voters list a heavy duty is cast

on him to pass a detailed speaking order, after giving an

opportunity to the persons of being heard. Also in the case of

Dhinchda Juth Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited (supra),

this Court has in paragraph 7.2 observed as under:

"[7.2] Shri Jayswal, learned AGP has stated that at the Bar that pursuant to the aforesaid direction as such the Director has already issued the circular directing all the Authorized Officers to comply with the decision of this Court in the case of Desai Dharamsinhbhai Taljabhai & Ors. (Supra). Despite the above decisions of this Court and even the strong observations made by the learned Single Judge referred to hereinabove, the respondent No.4 in the present case has deleted the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society from the voters' list without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Not only that but the respondent No.4 called the respondent No.5 on 06.08.2014 and after considering the objections/ submissions raised by respondent No.5 on 06.08.2014, has passed the impugned order deleting the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society from the final voters' list. As observed hereinabove and as such it is not in dispute and even so stated by Shri Vaghela, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 that after the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society were included in the provisional voters' list, the respondent No.5 never raised any objection either on or before 30.07.2014 and/or even 06.08.2014. It is required to be noted at this stage that as per the election programme, the last date for submitting the objections against the amendment in the preliminary voters list by publishing the provisional voters' list was 30.07.2014. Under the circumstances, as such it was not open for the respondent No.4 to consider the submissions made by respondent No.5 on

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

06.08.2014 more particularly when respondent No.5 never raised any objections against inclusion of the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society as required under Rule 8(1A) of the Rules. Considering the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules, after the amendment in the preliminary voters' list and if the names are included in the provisional voters' list, the Authorized Officer is required to consider only those objections which are received against inclusion of the names in the provisional voters' list. He cannot invite the objections subsequently. In the present case the respondent No.4 has called the respondent No.5 on 06.08.2014 to make submissions and considering the submissions made by the respondent No.5 on 06.08.2014 [though the respondent No.5 never raised any objection as per Rule 8(1A) of the Rules], the respondent No.4 has deleted the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society. The aforesaid is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the statutory provisions more particularly Rule 8 of the Rules. Even the aforesaid decision of respondent No.4 is as such contrary to the decisions of this Court in the case of Desai Dharamsinhbhai Taljabhai & Ors. (Supra), Prahladbhai Shivram Patel & Ors. (Supra) and Dhadhusan Beej Utpadak Rupantar and Vechan Karnari Sahkari Mandali Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) and even despite the circular issued by the Director issued pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the case of Prahladbhai Shivram Patel & Ors. (Supra), the respondent No.4 has deleted the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner cooperative society from the voters' list without giving any opportunity to the petitioner which, as observed by the learned Single Judge in its judgment and order in the case of Prahladbhai Shivram Patel & Ors. (Supra), would tantamount to contempt of Court."

This Court while referring to the judgments, quashed and set

aside the decision dated 06.08.2014 whereby the names of the

members of the Managing Committee were deleted in

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

violation of the principles of natural justice.

10. The issue raised in the present writ petition is required

to be decided on the touchstone of the aforesaid principle.

Before proceeding further, the facts need to be referred to in

crisp.

11. As can be seen, the preliminary voters list was published

calling for amendments, modifications and objections, apropos

which the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 submitted their objections

on 12.07.2021, to the Authorised Officer and the Authorised

Officer constituted a team of officers for conducting an

inquiry. The teams, visited the villages and prepared the

check-list and Rojkam and submitted its report. Thereafter,

the Authorised Officer issued notices to the respondent nos. 6

and 7 asking them to remain present for hearing and they

also appeared on 24.07.2021. The Authorised Officer though

thought it fit to issue notice to the respondent nos. 6 and 7,

did not take any steps to see that the petitioners are given any

opportunity to offer their response. The Authorised Officer

considering the objections dated 12.07.2021, and 24.07.2021,

so also the reports dated 23.07.2021 and 24.07.2021,

proceeded to pass an order dated 27.07.2021. The Authorised

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

Officer did not offer any opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners. The contention of the learned Assistant

Government Pleader that considering the number of

petitioners and the time schedule, it was not feasible for the

Authorised Officer to have offered an opportunity, cannot be

accepted. In the present case, as is clear from the record and

not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader,

the petitioners, have not been heard before their names were

excluded from the voters list and therefore the order dated

27.07.2021, prima facie appears to be in breach of principles

of natural justice. Therefore, the principles laid down by this

Court in the aforesaid judgments apply on all fours to the

facts of the present case, which aspect also could not be

disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader while

defending the order dated 27.07.2021.

12. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the action of

the Authorised Officer, prima facie being in clear breach of

principles of natural justice, the implementation and

execution of the order dated 27.07.2021 is hereby stayed and

the petitioners are permitted to vote. However, their votes

shall be kept in a sealed cover and shall not be counted. The

result of the election shall be subject to the final outcome of

C/SCA/11717/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

the present petition.

Direct service is permitted.

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) SINDHU NAIR