M.R.SHAH, J. - (1.) AS common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions they are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
(2.) THE facts leading to the present Special Civil Applications in a nutshell are as under; 2.1. Initially prior to 19/08/2000 there was Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanera declared under the provisions of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the market area situated within Dhanera Taluka. At that stage, Dantiwada was within the Dhanera Taluka and, therefore, the said area was also included within the market area for which Agriculture Produce Market Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'APMC') Dhanera was constituted for the entire Dhanera Taluka. In the year 2000, State Government took a policy decision for reconstituting certain Talukas and Districts and accordingly certain Talukas came to be reconstituted and the revenue limits of those Talukas and Districts came to be altered and thereafter, after following the due procedure, new Taluka, Dantiwada came to be reconstituted / constituted and after excluding the revenue limits from Dantiwada, two different Talukas named Dhanera and Dantiwada Taluka came to be formed / constituted / re -constituted and consequently after following the due procedure as required under Section 5 of the Act the market area of the then APMC, Dhanera came to be altered and by notification dated 09/08/2000 issued in exercise of powers under Section 6 of the Act two different market areas i.e. one market area for Dhanera Taluka and another market area for Dantiwada Taluka came to be declared. Consequently, two different APMC namely APMC, Dhanera and APMC, Panthawada came to constituted in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act and, therefore, APMC, Dhanera came to be constituted for Dhanera Taluka and APMC, Panthawada came to be constituted for Dantiwada Taluka. It appears that thereafter in exercise of powers conferred under the Land Revenue Code the territorial limits of Dhanera Taluka came to be changed and the revenue limits of three villages, namely, Panswal, Santarwada and Rampura came to be excluded from Dhanera Taluka and the revenue limits of the aforesaid three Talukas came to be included within the limits of Dantiwada Taluka vide notification dated 06/10/2009, and, therefore, the aforesaid three villages came to be included within the revenue limits of Dantiwada Taluka. However, at the relevant time, no steps were taken by the appropriate authority / competent authority / Director to alter the limits of the market area for which APMC, Dhanera and APMC, Panthawada were constituted and, therefore, as such, the societies falling within the aforesaid three villages, which initially were in the Dhanera Taluka came to be continued within the market area of APMC, Dhanera. No steps were taken by the Director to alter the limits of the market area and, therefore, the respective petitioners -Societies, who were carrying their operations in Panswal and Santarwada came to be continued within the control of APMC, Dhanera. The last election of APMC, Panthawada was held in the year 2011. In the said election the members of the Managing Committee of the respective petitioners -societies were included in the voters list of APMC, Dhanera and, therefore, both the respective petitioners herein approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application Nos.378/2011 and 379/2011 making a grievance that in view of the change in the reconstitution of the revenue limits and the aforesaid three villages, more particularly, villages Panswal and Santarwada came to be included within the revenue limits of Dantiwada Taluka and their names were required to be included in the voters list of APMC, Panthawada (Dantiwada Taluka). It appears that at the time when the aforesaid Special Civil Applications were taken up for hearing the election of the Members of the Managing Committee of APMC, Panthawada was over and, therefore, the petitioners withdrew the aforesaid Special Civil Applications. At this stage it is required to be noted that till then and even after the notification dated 06/10/2009 including the revenue limits of the aforesaid three villages into Dantiwada Taluka, the respective petitioners continued to do the business within the limits of APMC, Dhanera, after obtaining the license from the APMC, Dhanera. It is also required to be noted at this stage that even the Members of the Managing Committee of the respective petitioners -societies participated in the election of the Members of the Managing Committee of APMC, Dhanera. The last election of the Members of the Managing Committee of APMC, Panthawada was held in the year 2011 and the first meeting of the elected Members of the Managing Committee of APMC, Panthawada was held and convened in the month of March and their term was to expire on 10/03/2015. Respondent no.2 herein -Director of the Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance has declared the election of APMC, Panthawada and declared the election programme on dated 10/12/2014 and appointed an authorized Officer. Accordingly, the authorized Officer was required to prepare and publish the voters list. Consequently the authorized Officer prepared and published the preliminary voters list of agricultural constituency. W hile preparing and publishing the preliminary list of agricultural constituency, names of the Members of the respective petitioners -Societies came to be included. However, on the objections raised by respondent no.5 and after giving an opportunity to the respective petitioners the names of the Members of the Managing Committee of the respective petitioners -Societies have been excluded from the provisional list of voters on the ground that Panswal and Santarwada villages are not included within the market area of APMC, Panthawada and the names of the Members of the Managing Committee of the respective petitioners -Societies cannot be included in the voters list of agricultural constituency of APMC, Panthawada unless and until the due procedure as required under the Act is followed the market area of APMC, Panthawada is altered, the aforesaid three villages are included within the market area of APMC, Panthawada, their names cannot be included in the voters list. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and and dissatisfied with the impugned decision of the authorized Officer excluding the names of the Members of the Managing Committee of the respective petitioners -Societies from the provisional list of voters of the agricultural constituency of APMC, Panthawada, the respective petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) SHRI Dipen Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners has vehemently submitted that the impugned decision of the authorized Officer excluding the names of the Members of the Managing Committee of the respective petitioners -societies of agricultural constituency of APMC, Panthawada is absolutely illegal and contrary to the provisions of the statute. 3.1. It is further submitted by Shri Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners that earlier when APMC, Dhanera was bifurcated into two APMCs i.e. APMC, Dhanera and APMC, Panthawada, one for Dhanera Taluka and another for Dantiwada Taluka respectively, the market area were declared for the entire Dhanera Taluka and Dantiwada Taluka and more particularly when the market area for APMC, Panthawada was declared, it was for the entire Dantiwada Taluka, on inclusion of revenue limits of three villages namely Panswal, Santarwada and Rampura in Dantiwada Taluka as declared by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the Land Revenue Code and as all the three villages will be part of Dantiwada Taluka, the aforesaid three villages would automatically be included in the market area of APMC, Panthawada and, therefore, no fresh procedure as contemplated under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act is required. It is submitted that therefore automatically the respective petitioners -Societies would come within the area / market area of APMC, Panthawada and, therefore, their names are required to be included in the voters list of APMC, Panthawada as they have right to participate in the election of APMC, Panthawada. 3.2. Relying upon Sections 5, 6, 9 and 54 of the Act, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners that once the market area is declared for the entire Taluka, in the present case the market area of APMC, Panthawada had been declared for the entire Dantiwada Taluka, and thereafter some other areas are included in Dantiwada Taluka, automatically the area, which is included in Dantiwada Taluka, they will be part of the market area of APMC, Panthawada automatically. Shri Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners has further submitted that even in the year 2011 also i.e. in the last election of APMC, Panthawada the respective petitioners did make such grievance, however, at that time as the election was already over and the election was declared, the petitioners withdrew the same. Making the above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddhpur Taluka Co.op Sales Union Vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 2 GLH 773, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Applications and to quash and set aside the impugned decisions of the authorized Officer excluding the names of the Members of the Managing Committee of the respective petitioners -Societies from the provisional list of voters of the agricultural constituency and consequently to direct the authorized Officer to include their names in the final list of voters of agricultural constituency and to permit them to participate in the ensuing election of the Members of the Managing Committee of APMC, Panthawada. All these petitions are opposed by Shri Dhawan Jayswal, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the authorized Officer as well as respondent no.2 -Director and Shri V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 herein -objector on whose objections the names of the Members of the Managing Committee are excluded from the provisional list of the voters list of APMC, Panthawada. 4.1. Shri Dhawan Jayswal, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the authorized Officer as well as respondent no.2 -Director has vehemently submitted that the impugned decision of the authorized Officer excluding the names of the Members of the Managing Committee of the respective petitioners -Society from the provisional list of voters of agricultural constituency APMC, Panthawada is absolutely jut and proper and in consonance with the provisions of the Act, more particularly, Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. It is further submitted that it is true that the revenue limits of the aforesaid three villages namely, Panswal, Santarwada and Rampura are included within the revenue limits of Dantiwada Taluka, still after 2009 to include the aforesaid three villages within the market area of APMC, Panthawada the procedure as contemplated under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act is required to be followed. It is submitted that at the relevant time when the market area for APMC, Panthawada was constituted and declared, at that time the objections were invited for the market area to be included for APMC, Panthawada and for the villages of Dantiwada Taluka, which at the relevant time were in the Dantiwada Taluka. It is submitted that therefore if by including the aforesaid three villages, limits of the market area shall be altered, considering Section 6(5) of the Act, fresh procedure is required to be undertaken to include the aforesaid three villages in the market area for APMC, Panthawada. It is submitted that therefore merely because the aforesaid revenue limits of the aforesaid three villages are included in Dantiwada Taluka there shall not be any automatic inclusion of the aforesaid three villages in the market area for APMC, Panthawada. It is submitted that therefore when the respective petitioners -Societies whose operation are carried within the aforesaid three villages and as such they continue to be within the market area for APMC, Dhanera, they have no right to participate in the election of APMC, Panthawada as they are not within the market area of APMC, Panthawada. It is further submitted by Shri Jayswal, learned AGP that as such the controversy raised in the present Special Civil Applications is now not res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Lal Chaggan Lal Patel Vs. The Agriculture Produce Market Committee and Ors., 1976 AIR(SC) 263 Relying upon paragraph nos. 15 and 16 of the aforesaid decision it is vehemently submitted that the contention on behalf of the respective petitioners that to include the aforesaid three villages in the market area of APMC, Panthawada no fresh procedure as required to be following under Sections 6(5) and Section 5 of the Act is required to be followed cannot be accepted. Shri Jayswal, learned AGP has also relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Borsad and Ors Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., 2002 2 GLH 700. 4.2. He has also stated at the bar, under the instructions from the Director, who is personally present in the Court, that as such, after the impugned decision of the authorized Officer and having come to know about the notification of the aforesaid three villages into Dantiwada Taluka and having realized that consequently the market area of APMC, Panthawada is required to be altered the Director has already now initiated the proceedings / process for altering the limits of the market area of APMC, Panthawada and has already invited the objections. Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Applications. ;