Skip to content


Birjlal Atmaram Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1487 to 1492 of 1969
Judge
Reported in1971WLN(UC)29
AppellantBirjlal Atmaram
RespondentKrishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredVyoparmandal Udaipur v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
Excerpt:
constitution of india - article 226--delay--constitution & election of a samiti challanged after 2 years--held, high court not to interfere.;no satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioners in this case as to why they did not take active interest in the formation of the samiti when the provisions rolls were published and objections were invited by the collector and why the challenge was not thrown to the constitution of the samiti soonafter the election thereof. i do not find any reason to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution in this case when the constitution was challenged after a lapse of about two years, specially when the term of the samiti under the provision of the law has expired or is likely to expire..........voters. it is said that the rolls were then finalised by the collector and on the basis of those rolls, the election of the samiti was held and the result thereof was finally notified on 23rd november, 1967. then the samiti started functioning, but the petitioners preferred to challenge the constitution thereof in the year 1969.4. learned counsel for the petitioners could not say on enquiry by the court whether the term of the samiti has expired or not or whether the samiti is still functioning. however, it is admitted that three years have already passed since the date the constitution of samiti was notified by the collector in the official gazette. in messrs. thakurdrs rishideo v. krishi upaj mandi samiti, alwar and ors. s.b. civil writ petition no. 1042/68 decided on 30th january,.....
Judgment:

V.P. Tyagi, J.

1. These five write petition arise out of a common order. Therefore they can be conveniently disposed of by one judgment.

2. In all these five cases, the petitioners are businessmen & are carrying on business of sale & purchase of agricultural produce &, therefore according to them, they are very much interested in the formation of the Krishi Upaj mandi Samiti, Hanumangarh hereinafter called the 'Samiti'.

3. For the formation of the Samiti at Hanumangarh, the Collector of shri Ganganagar completed the electoral rolls and they were published provisionally on 30th December, 1996 inviting objections from the voters. It is said that the rolls were then finalised by the collector and on the basis of those rolls, the election of the Samiti was held and the result thereof was finally notified on 23rd November, 1967. Then the Samiti started functioning, but the petitioners preferred to challenge the constitution thereof in the year 1969.

4. learned Counsel for the petitioners could not say on enquiry by the court whether the term of the Samiti has expired or not or whether the Samiti is still functioning. However, it is admitted that three years have already passed since the date the constitution of Samiti was notified by the collector in the official Gazette. In Messrs. Thakurdrs Rishideo v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1042/68 decided on 30th January, 1971 this Court in similar circumstances was of opinion that the constitution of the Samiti was challenged by filing a writ application very late. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioners in this case as to why they did not take active interest in the formation of the Samiti when the provisional rolls were published and objections were invited by the Collector and why the challenge was not thrown to the constitution of the Samiti soon after the election thereof. This Court in Messrs. Thakurds Rishideo's writ application refused to interfere on the ground of delay. The circumstances of the present case are not in any way different from those obtainable in Thakurdas's case. I do not find any reason to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case when the constitution was challenged after a lapse of about two years, specially when the term of the Samiti under the provisions of the law has expired or is likely to expire shortly.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that in case the elections of the Samiti have not taken place, a direction be issued to the Collector that the elections must be completed as early as possible. At present, the elections of Parliament are going on in the country and, therefore, elections of the Samiti cannot take precedence over the election of the Parliament and the Collector cannot be asked to immediately get the Samiti constituted by election However, it is expected that soon after the elections of Parliament are over and if a fresh Samiti has not been constituted under the law, the Collector should see to it that the elections of the Samiti are held, and they should be completed by 15th May as directed in Vyoparmandal Udaipur v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1644/70.

6. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed on account of belated action taken by the petitioners. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //