Gujarat High Court

Mohmed Javid Abdulmutlib Pirzada vs State Of Gujarat on 12 April, 2022

Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

     C/SCA/18140/2021                                    ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18140 of 2021

==========================================================
                   MOHMED JAVID ABDULMUTLIB PIRZADA
                                Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR BS PATEL, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ISHAN JOSHI, AGP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR JAY B TRIVEDI(7474) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                               Date : 12/04/2022

                                ORAL ORDER

1. The present writ application has been filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the

following prayers:-

"(A) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the

nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,

order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order

dated 27.11.2021 passed by Authorised Officer

ordering to delete the names of petitioners from the

final voter list of agriculturests' constituency forthe

election of APMC, Vankaner and further be pleased to

direct the Authorised Officer to republish final voter list

of agriculturests' constituency after including names of

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

petitioners for the reasons stated in the Memo of

Petition and in the interest of justice;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of

the above Special Civil Application to stay the

execution, implementation and operation of the order

dated 27.11.2021 passed by Authorised Officer

ordering to delete the names of petitioners from the

final voter list of agriculturests constituency for the

election of APMC, Vankaner and further be pleased to

direct the Authorised Officer to continue the names of

petitioners in the final voter list for agriculturests

constituency for the reasons stated in the Memo of

Petition and in the interest of justice;

(C) To grant ad-interim relief in terms of Para-29 (B)

hereinabove.

(D) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant

any other appropriate relief as the nature

circumstances of the case may require.

(E) To award the cost of this petition."

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

2. The writ-applicants herein are aggrieved by the

impugned order dated 27.11.2021 passed by the

respondent no.3 Authorised Officer deleting the name of

the writ-applicants from voters' list of agriculturist

constituency, Vankaner, which reads thus :-

"2) It appears clear from the letter dated

17/11/2021 of the society that the society has completed

the election procedure and formed a new managing

committee. Therefore, new managing committee has

been formed instead of managing committee of Sr. No.66

to 81 of the Voter's list re-published referred at Sr.(6)

above. Therefore, as per the provisions of Sr.(1) above,

no other names except of the names of existing

managing committee of the society can be kept continue.

As per the provision of Sr.(7) above, members of the

former managing committee of Shree Kishan Seva

Sahakari Mandali Limited, At: Panchasiya, Taluka:

Wankaner, District: Morbi have lost their eligibility to

remain continue in the voter's list.

       3)                     An information should be given to the

       authorized         officer    as    per     Rule-7(1)          of    the      Gujarat






 C/SCA/18140/2021                                           ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 to include new

names as per new managing committee of Shree Kishan

Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, At: Panchasiya, Taluka:

Wankaner, District: Morbi. The election program has been

published vide notification referred at Sr.(3) above.

Moreover, the voter's list has been re-published as per Sr.

(6) referred above. Last date for the

objections/suggestions against the voter's list re-

published as per notification of the market committee

election was 24/11/2021. The said Shree Kishan Seva

Sahakari Mandali Limited, At: Panchasiya, Taluka:

Wankaner, District: Morbi has not produced the list of the

new managing committee of the society till the said date

also.

4) Thus, it appears clear from the above that

new managing committee has come into existence

against managing committee of Sr. No.66 to 81 of the

Voter's list referred at Sr.(6) above of Shree Kishan Seva

Sahakari Mandali Limited, At: Panchasiya, Taluka:

Wankaner, District: Morbi. Therefore, as it does not

appear proper to keep the names published in the voter's

list continue as per the list of the former managing

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

committee, I pass following order.

:: Order ::

Considering the objection raised with the above

mentioned detail with respect to the general election of

the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Wankaner, I,

the authorized officer, pass an order under the power

conferred upon me vide Rules - 8 of the Gujarat

Agricultural Produce Market Rules - 1965, to eliminate the

names of all the members of the managing committee of

the Kisan Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd., at - Panchasiya,

Taluka - Wankaner from the final voters' list of the

agriculturists electorate to be published on 29/11/2021

pursuant to the general election of the market committee,

vankaner.

Sd/-(Illgible) (J.M. Mehta) Authorised Officer, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Wankaner and Cooperation Officer Grade-2 (Industries) for the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Morbi."

3. The facts as stated by the writ-applicants germane to

the adjudication of the present writ-petition read thus:-

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

3.1 The writ-applicants are agriculturalist of Village

Panchasiya, Taluka Vankaner, District Morbi. The writ-

applicants are members of Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari

Mandali / Society Ltd. and they are elected members of

the Managing Committee of said Mandali / Society. The

said Mandali / Society is engaged in the business of giving

various financial assistance to his members since last 17

years and the writ-applicant no.10 is representative of the

Shree Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd. which is giving

finance to Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali / Society

Ltd. The election of APMC, Vankaner came to be declared

by the Director on 13.10.2021 under the Gujarat

Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965. The names of

the writ-applicants were included in the preliminary

voters' list under the agriculturists constituency for

election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee (for

short 'APMC'), Vankaner. The Respondent no.4 raised

objection on 02.11.2021 against inclusion of the writ-

applicants in the voters' list. The Authorised Officer issued

notice and called upon the society to remain present

before the Authorised Officer on 09.11.2021. The Society

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

filed reply and remained present before the Authorised

Officer, by the order dated 15.11.2021. The Authorised

Officer i.e. respondent No.3 rejected the objections raised

by the respondent No.4. After deciding the said objection,

the Authorised Officer published revised draft voters' list

on 17.11.2021. The names of the writ-applicants also

appeared in the said list. On 17.11.2021, after publication

of the revised draft voters' list, the respondent no.4 once

again raised objection on 22.11.2021. The said objection

was not served to the writ-applicants or Mandali / Society

and no notice came to be issued either to writ-applicants

or Mandali / Society.

4. It is the case of the writ-applicants that the

respondent no.4 never challenged the order passed by the

Authorised Officer dated 15.11.21 and that the said order

rejecting the objection raised by the respondent no.4,

attained finality. The Authorised Officer could not have

accepted the objection raised by the respondent no.4 on

22.11.2021 in view of the provision of Rule 8(1)(a) of the

Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (for

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

short "APMC Rules, 1965"). The impugned order dated

27.11.2021 allowing objection filed by the respondent no.4

is without issuance of notice to the writ-applicants or

Mandali / Society and without following principles of

natural justice.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned

order dated 27.11.2021 passed by the Authorised Officer

deleting the names of the writ-applicants as members of

the Managing Committee of Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari

Mandali / Society Ltd. from the final voters' list of

agriculturist constituency APMC, the writ-applicants are

constrained to approach this Court by filing the present

writ application.

6. Mr.Rao, the learned advocate appearing for the writ

applicants submitted that the order dated 27.11.2021

passed by the Authorised Officer i.e. the respondent no.3

deleting the names of the writ-applicants from final voters

list from agricultural constituency APMC, Vankaner, is

against the provision of law, without authority of law and

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

in violation of provision of principle of natural justice.

6.2 Mr.Rao, the learned advocate submitted that

the order passed by the Authorised Officer on 27.11.2021

is against the provision of Rule 8(1)(a) of APMC Rules,

1965. The respondent no. 4 raised objection with regard to

inclusion of the name of writ-applicants on 02.11.21 and

the Authorised Officer by the order dated 15.11.21

rejected the said objection raised by the respondent no.4

against the inclusion of the name of the writ-applicants of

the Managing Committee Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari

Mandali / Society Ltd.

6.3 Mr.Rao, the learned advocate vehemently

submitted that the objection raised by the respondent

no.4 on 22.11.2021 could not be accepted by the

Authorised Officer which is not permissible and contrary to

the provisions of Rule 8(1)(A) of the APMC Rules. Mr.Rao,

the learned advocate relied upon the judgment reported in

(1998) 1 GLR 95.

6.4 In view of above, lastly Mr.Rao, learned

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

advocate submitted that the impugned order dated

27.11.2021 passed by the Authorised Officer respondent

NO.3 is de hors the provision of law and the same be

quashed and set aside.

7. Mr.B. S. Patel, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by

Mr.Ishan Joshi, learned AGP appearing for the respondent

No.3, per contra, raised preliminary objection with regard

to maintainability of the writ application.

7.1 Mr.B. S. Patel, the learned Senior Counsel submitted

that the order passed by the respondent no.3 pertains to

inclusion or exclusion of the names of the writ-applicants

in the voters list, which cannot be termed as extraordinary

circumstances warranting interference by this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such questions

are to be decided in the election petition under Rule 28 of

the Election Rules.

7.2 Mr.Patel, the learned Senior Counsel further

submitted that the writ-applicants were not qualified and

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

that the earlier order dated 15.11.2021, rejecting the

objection raised by the respondent no.4 was passed by

the respondent no.3. In view of the fact, the writ-

applicants have suppressed the material facts before the

Authorised Officer.

7.3 Mr.Patel, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that

the writ applicants have committed fraud for inclusion of

their names by not disclosing the election of society in

which almost all Directors have been elected and the writ

applicants ceased to be the directors as per the provisions

of Rule 6 of the Agriculture Produce Market Rules, 1965.

When it came to the notice of the respondent no.3, the

misrepresentation by the the writ applicants, who have

lost capacity to be continued in the voters list, the writ

applicants are not entitled to proceed under the Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

7.4 Mr.Patel, the learned Senior Counsel further

submitted that though the election was in progress, the

fact was never disclosed to the Authorised Officer and

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

then the said fact came to the knowledge of the

Authorised Officer by way of objection raised by the

respondent no.4 and the Authorised Officer was duty

bound to remove the names of the writ applicants from

the voters' list.

7.5 Mr.Patel, the learned Senior Counsel lastly

submitted that the writ-applicants have not approached

this Court with clean hands and on that ground, the writ

application be rejected.

7.6 Mr.B.S.Patel, the learned Senior Counsel

submitted that by the order dated 17.11.2021, the District

Registrar, Cooperative Society, Morbi, removed the name

of Shri Bakrolia Hanifbhai from the post of Secretary of

Pithva Sahkari Ltd. The said order has not been challenged

by the said Mandali / Society.

8. Mr.Jay Trivedi, the learned advocate appearing

for respondent No.4 objector adopted submissions

advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.B.S.Patel and

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

submitted that the writ-applicants have no locus to prefer

the present writ application.

8.1 Mr.Trivedi, the learned advocate submitted that the

order passed by the Authorised Officer on 27.11.2021, the

names of the elected members of the Managing

Committee of Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali /

Society Ltd. be deleted is just and proper and requires no

interference. s

8.2 Mr.Trivedi further submitted that the names of the

newly elected members of the Managing Committee of the

society have been included in the preliminary votes list at

Sr.66 to 81 and the society cannot be said to be aggrieved

by the order of the Authorised Officer and that the writ-

applicants in their individual capacity could not maintain

the present writ application.

8.3 Mr.Trivedi further submitted that in the

preliminary voters list, there were total 15 elected

members and one representative of the Rajkot District

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., were included in the voters

list and by virtue of the order passed by the Authorised

Officer dated 27.11.2021 all the 16 names of the society

came to be deleted. The present writ application has been

filed by only 10 members of the society and rest 6

members have accepted the order passed by the

Authorised Officer. The remaining 6 members are not

joined as party respondents in the present proceedings

and therefore, the said petition suffers from of non-joinder

of proper parties.

8.4 Mr.Trivedi, the learned advocate submitted that

election of Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali / Society

Ltd. was held in August, 2016 for a period of 5 years as

per Section 74(1C) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies

Act,1961 and the term of the society expired in August,

2021, which has been admitted even by the writ applicant

at Page 50 in their reply filed before the Authorised

Officer.

8.5 Mr.Trivedi, the learned advocate submitted that

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

upon expiry of the term, the Managing Committee of the

society their elected members do not have right to

continue in the Managing Committee in view of the

provisions of Section 74(1C)(ii) and therefore, the writ-

applicantss do not have right to continue in the Managing

Committee of the said society. Mr.Trivedi, the learned

advocate submitted that the writ-applicants before the

Authorised Officer at no point of time stated that they are

undertaking the election process of society and the writ

applicants have suppressed material facts before the

Authorised Officer and therefore, the writ-applicants are

not entitled to such discretionary reliefs under article 226

of the Constitution of India.

8.6 Mr.Trivedi, the learned advocate submitted that

the object of the Act is to include the eligible members to

participate in the election of the Managing Committee and

the powers of the Authorised Officer is to be read

furtherance of hte object of the Act. Therefore, the

Authorised Officer having came to know the facts, the

Authorised Officer has rightly deleted the names of the

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

writ applicants.

Analysis:-

9. The writ-applicants are agriculturalist of Village

Panchasiya, Taluka Vankaner, District Morbi. The writ-

applicants were members of Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari

Mandali / Society Ltd., and they were elected members of

the Managing Committee of said Mandali / Society. The

said Mandali / Society is engaged in the business of giving

various financial assistance to his members since last 17

years and the writ-applicant no.10 was representative of

the Shree Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd. which is

giving finance to Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali /

Society Ltd. The election of APMC, Vankaner came to be

declared by the Director on 13.10.2021 under the Gujarat

Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965. The election of

the said mandali was held In August, 2021. New trustees

came to be elected and their names have been included in

the voter's list at Sr.66 to 80. The writ-applicants appear

to have ceased from the said voter's list since it appears

that names of the writ-applicants consequently stand

deleted from the voter's list for the election of

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

Agriculturists' constituency. The names of the writ-

applicants were included in the preliminary voters' list of

the agricultural constituency for election of APMC,

Vankaner. The Respondent no.4 raised objection on

02.11.2021 against inclusion of the writ-applicants in the

voters' list. The said objection was rejected by the order

dated 15.11.2021 by the Authorised Officer. After deciding

the said objection, the Authorised Officer published

revised draft voters' list on 17.11.2021. The names of the

writ-applicants also appeared in the said list. The

respondent no.4 once again raised objection on

22.11.2021. upon rasing the objection by the respondent

no.4, the impugned order dated 27.11.2021 passed by the

Authorised Officer deleting the names of the writ-

applicants as members of the Managing Committee of

Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali / Society Ltd. from

the final voters' list of agriculturist constituency APMC,

Position of Law:-

10. The law as regards judicial review in the matters

pertaining to election is well settled.

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

(a) The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Daheda

Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited vs. R. D. Rohit,

Authorised Officer and Cooperative Officer (Marketing),

reported in 2006 (1) GCD 211 held that the inclusion or

exclusion of name in the voters' list cannot be termed as

extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 reads thus :-

"31. On the question of maintainability of petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in our opinion, the

law is well settled. Mr Patel, invited our attention to the

decision reported in 1988 GLH 430. There the Division

Bench, after quoting the judgment of a Full Bench in the

case of Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Ltd. v. Union of India and

Ors. (18 GLR 714) where the principles have been clearly

enumerated and held that extraordinary jurisdiction of

the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India is very wide, the Court should be

slow in exercising the said jurisdiction where alternative

efficacious remedy under the Act is available but

however, if the impugned order is an ultra vires order or

is nullity as being ex-facie without jurisdiction. the

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

question of exhausting alternative remedy would hardly

arise.

31.1. In the case of Mehsana Dist. Coop. Sales and

Purchase Union v. State of Gujarat (1988 (2) GLR 1060),

after following the decision rendered by the Apex Court in

the case reported in the case of Gujarat University v. N U

Rajguru, (1988 (1) GLR 308), the Court have noted the

observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:-

"there may be cases where exceptional or extraordinary

circumstances may exist to justify bye-passing

alternative remedies".

In the case of Manda Jaganath v. K S Rathnam, reported

in AIR 2004 SC 3600, the Apex Court has held after

considering the provisions of Article 329(B) of the

Constitution of India that "there are special situations

wherein writ jurisdiction can be exercised but, special

situation means error having the effect of interfering in

the free flow of the scheduled election or hinder the

progress of the election which is the paramount

consideration."

In the case of Election Commission of India v. Ashok

Kumar, reported in 2000(8) SCC page 216, the Apex

Court held that the order issued by the Election

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

Commission is open to judicial review on the ground of

malafide or arbitrary exercise of powers.

32. We have gone through the aforesaid decisions

closely. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the

principles laid down therein. The sum and substance of

those decisions apply to a situation where this Court

would like to entertain a petition on the foundation that

the order is ultra vires and/ or without jurisdiction and/or

is violating principles of natural justice. Thus, in an

exceptional case, this Court can exercise the power of

judicial review, which is a basic structure of the situation

in such cases more particularly, in the election process.

One thing is clear that this Court ordinarily would not like

to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution

when the process of election has been set in motion even

though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of

rules while preparing the electoral roll.

32.1. The Supreme Court, in the case of Shri Sant

Sadguru Janardan Swamy (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari

Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Ors. v. State of

Maharashtra and Ors (2001) 8 SCC 509, while dealing

with the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, held that

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a

specified society where the election process having been

set in motion, the High Court should not stay the

continuation of the election process even though there

may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while

preparing the electoral roll. It was held that the proper

remedy is by way of election petition before the Election

Tribunal.

33. In view of the above discussion, we answer the

Reference as under:

i. A person whose name is not included in the voters' list

can avail benefit of provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules by

filing Election Petition.

ii. As the authority under Rule 28 has wide power to

cancel, confirm and amend the election and to direct to

hold fresh election in case the election is set aside,

remedy under Rule 28 is an efficacious remedy.

iii. Even though a petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is maintainable though alternative

remedy is available, the powers are to be exercised in

case of extraordinary or special circumstances such as

where the order is ultra vires or nullity and/or ex facie

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

without jurisdiction. The exclusion or inclusion of names

in the voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary

circumstances warranting interference by this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such

questions are to be decided in an Election Petition under

Rule 28 of the Rules."

(b) The ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari

Seva Sahakari Mandali / Society Ltd., vs. State of Gujarat

and Others, reported in 2017(2) GLR 902, paragraphs 13

to 16 read thus :-

"13. It is also pleaded by learned Senior Advocate Mr.

Mihir Joshi that remedy under Rule 28 of the Rules is only

before Director, and the order impugned in the Special

Civil Application is passed by the Authorised Officer of

the Director who is performing functions as election

officer, as such, the same is not an effective alternative

remedy. Merely because the impugned order is passed

by the Authorised Officer, that by itself is no ground to

hold that remedy before the Director is not an effective

alternative remedy. When a dispute is raised by placing

material on record, it is always open for the Director to

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

pass appropriate orders either by confirming or by

amending the results of election or setting aside the

election. In view of such powers which are expressly

conferred under Rule 28 of the Rules, even such

submission that under the Rules the Director is working

under the government and the impugned order passed

by the Authorised Officer of the Director also cannot be a

ground to accept the contention that remedy under Rule

28 of the Rules is not effective alternative remedy.

14. It is also pleaded by learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mihir

Joshi that the learned single Judge has also recorded a

finding that the appellant is not primary agricultural

credit cooperative society, but it was not a ground for

exclusion of the names of the members of the Managing

Committee of the appellant society and the learned

single Judge thereby dismissed the Special Civil

Application. It is clear from Section 11(1)(i) of the Act

that members of the Managing Committee of only

primary agricultural credit cooperative societies doing

credit business in the market area alone are eligible to

vote. The learned single Judge has recorded such finding.

But from the reasons stated in the order impugned in the

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

Special Civil Application as we are of the view that the

order impugned in the Special Civil Application itself can

be the subject-matter of election petition, such finding of

the leaned single Judge will have no consequence at all.

14A. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that

this appeal is devoid of merits and the same is

accordingly dismissed.

15. However, we leave it open to the appellant that if the

appellant-petitioner is aggrieved by the result of election,

it can approach the Competent Authority by raising an

election dispute as contemplated under Rule 28 of the

Rules. If such petition is filed, it shall be considered by

the Competent Authority independently and uninfluenced

by the findings recorded either by the learned single

Judge or by this Court in this appeal.

16. Since the main appeal is dismissed, the Civil

Application does not survive and the same stands

disposed of."

11. In view of the ratio as laid down in 2006 (1) GCD

211 once the election programme has been set in motion

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

even though there may be some alleged illegality or

breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll, this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should

refrain itself from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction.

12. In view of the fact that this Court has not gone into

the merits of the impugned order dated 27.11.2021

passed by the Authorised Officer i.e. respondent No.3 the

judgment as referred by the learned advocates appearing

for both the sides are not dealt with. This Court is inclined

to relegate the writ applicants to avail statutory remedy

under rule 28 of the Rules, 1965.

12.1 Rule 28 of the Rules 1965 reads thus :-

"28. Determination of validity of election .- (1) If the

validity of any election of a member of the Market

Committee is brought in question by any person qualified

either to be elected or to vote at the election to which

such question refers such person may, within seven days

after the date of the declaration of the result of the

election, apply in writing-

C/SCA/18140/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022

(a) to the Director, if the election has been conducted by

a person authorised by the Director, to perform the

function of an Election Officer, and

(b) to the State Government if the election has been

conducted by the Director as an Election Officer and

(2) On receipt of an application under sub-rule (1), the

Director, or the State Government, as the case may be,

shall, after giving an opportunity to the applicant to be

heard and after making such inquiry as he or it as the

case may be, deems fit, pass an order confirming or

amending the declared result of election or setting the

election aside and such order shall be final. If the

Director or the State Government as the case may be

sets aside the election, a date shall be forthwith fixed,

and the necessary steps be taken for holding a fresh

election for filling up the vacancy of such member."