( 1 ) THE petitioners in these two writ petitions have been nominated as candidates at the election from the Traders' Constituency of the Agricultural Produce Market committee, Tiptur. The last date for nominations was 11-8-1975. In these two writ petitions, they have questioned the, Inclusion of 48 persons, who are impleaded as respondents herein, as voters in the voters' list of the Traders' Constituency by the order dated 8-8-1975 passed by the Tahsildar, Tiptur, in exercise of the powers delegated to him. The relevant provisions of law are the following: ( 2 ) UNDER clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of S. 11 of the Karnataka agricultural Produce Market (Regulation) Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the Act, A Class, B Class and C Class traders in any market area are entitled to elect two members to the market committee. The expression 'trader' is defined under S. 2 (48) of the Act as meaning a person who buvs notified agricultural produce either for himself or as agent of one or more persons for the purpose of selling, processing, manufacturing or for any other purpose, except for the purpose of domestic consumption, Every trader who wants to operate within the market area has to obtain a licence under S 8 (b) of the Act The traders who are licensed to operate in a market area are classified into four categories viz, A Class traders; B Class traders; C Class traders and D Class traders under S. 85 of the Act. Rule 5b of the Karnatatka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, which are, framed by the State government in exercise of its powers under S. 146 of the Act, provides for the manner in which the list of voters of the Traders' Constltuenay has to be prepared. Sub-rule (3) of R 5b provides that the provisions relating to the preparation of lists of voters of Agriculturisls' Constituency and inclusion of names in such lists set out in Rule 5a shall apply in relation to the lists of voters of Traders' Constituency. The proviso to that sub-rule however states that an application for the inclusion of a name In the voters lists of the Traders' Constituency shall be in Form No. 14. The proviso to that sub-rule however states that an application for the inclusion of a name In the voters lists of the Traders' Constituency shall be in Form No. 14. Form No. 14 reads as follows: ( 3 ) THE 48 persons whose inclusion in the voters' list of the Traders' constituency is challenged were admittedly not licenced traders on the date on which they applied to the Tahsildar to include their names in the voters' list of licensed traders. All of them appear to have applied to the tahsildar on 2-8-1975, although the applications made by them appear to have been prepared between 29-7-1975 and 1-8-1975 Since the text of all the applications is identical, only one of them is reproduced below: ( 4 ) THE contention of Sriyuths M. Rama Jois and S. R. Rajasekhara murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the inclusion of the names of 48 persons, which is challenged in these writ petitions, has been done in violation of express provisions of law and with the object of supporting the candidature of certain other candidates. They contend that in the facts, and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tahsildar including the names of 48 persons as voters is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) SRI Mohandas N. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents, whose names were included in the voters' list by the impugned older raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these writ petitions. He argued that, there being an effective alternative remedy provided under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5a, against the order of the Tahsildar by way of an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, it would not be appropriate for this court to interfere with the impugned order. It is no doubt true that the existence of an alternative remedy is a ground on which this court can reject a petition under Art. 2?6 of the Constitution. It is no doubt true that the existence of an alternative remedy is a ground on which this court can reject a petition under Art. 2?6 of the Constitution. But, it does not act as a complete bar to the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under that Article, It is open to the High Court in appropriate cases to interfere with the orders passed by the lower Tribunals and other authorities, if it is of the opinion, on a consideration of the facts and materials placed before it, that the ends of justice require the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court in such cases. I am of the view that the material placed before the Court in these two cases is such taht does not preclude this Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Art 226 of the Constitution. I, therefore, over-rule the preliminary objection raised by Sri Hegde. ( 6 ) THE facts of these cases have to be appreciated in the light of the provisions contained in clause (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5a which states that no amendment or deletion of any entry shall be made under sub-rule (1) and no direction for the inclusion of a name in the list of voters of a constituency shall be given under that sub-rule after the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency and before the completion of that election. As mentioned earlier, the last date for the nominations was 11-8-1975 and the 48 persons whose names were included in the list of voters were not licenced traders till 8-8-1975. Form No. 14 of the Rules in. which applications have to be made by persons under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5a for being included in the list of voters, by necessary implication, requires that an applicant should be a licenced trader on the date of the application. He has got to state in that application that he is a licenced trader belonging to any of the classifications, namety. A Class, B Class or C Class traders and that ho has also to state his licecnce number and the date on which it was issued to him. He has got to state in that application that he is a licenced trader belonging to any of the classifications, namety. A Class, B Class or C Class traders and that ho has also to state his licecnce number and the date on which it was issued to him. In the applications made by these 48 persons, although they have stated that they belong to tho category of 'c' Class traders, they could not suppress the information from the know ledge of the authority concerned that they had not yet become licenced traders. They have stated in their applications that they had only made tho application to the Market Committee on 1-8-1975. The contention cf the learned Counsel for the petitioners 'hat an applicant, for inclusion of his name in the voters' list, must be a licenced trader on the date of the application is no1 without force. ( 7 ) SRI M. Chandrakantaraj Urs. learned Government Pleader, however argued relying upon sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 5a that any person inesnective of the fact whether he was a licenced trader or not was entitled to make an application to include his name in tho list of voters. I find it difficult to agree with the submission made by him. The expression 'any person in sub-rule 2 (a) of Rule 5a has to be road along with the other provisions of the Aot and the Rules, which have a bearing on the question. Under clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of S. 11 only those traders who have been licenced as A Class, B Class or C Class traders can elect the members of the market committee. Form No 14 which is prescribed under the rules requires the applicant to furnish information regarding the category of traders to which he belongs, the number of his licence and the date on which licence was granted by the market committee. The first proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 5b expressly requires that the application should be in Form no. 14. The first proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 5b expressly requires that the application should be in Form no. 14. Even if there is any room for doubt when sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 5a is read independently, when it is read along with the proviso to sub- rule (3) of Rule 5b, there would be no room for any kind of doubt about the qualification which a person should possess when he makes an application for inclusion in the list of voters He has to be a licensed trader on the date of the application. ( 8 ) ONE other contention urged in support of the writ petitions is that the Tahsildar had not notified the applications made by the 48 persons inviting objections, thereto as required by Clause (b) of Sub-Rule (3) of rule 5a. In the statement of objections, it is urged that the applications in question had been duly published. But, since in ,these cases it is admitted that the applicants had paid the licence fees only on 3-8-1975, and that they had been issued licences on that day, the authorities cannot rely upon the fact that the said applications had been published on the notice board on any date prior to 8-8-1975, even granting that such publication had been made prior to 8-8-1975 since the applications could be treated as valid applications only after 8-8-1975. Between 8-8-1975 and 11-8-1975, beyond which no. direction could be given for the inclusion of any name in the voters' list which could be used at the election in question, the interval was less than seven days, that is, the period of notice that had to be given. The person who is interested in raising an objection to an application for inclusion of the name of a person in the voters' list must have clear seven days' notice as provided in clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5a. In the instant case, it is clear that the objectors had no such notice as the names were included on 9-8-1975, that is, one day after the applicants obtained the licences. In the instant case, it is clear that the objectors had no such notice as the names were included on 9-8-1975, that is, one day after the applicants obtained the licences. ( 9 ) IT was also urged that in the registers maintained by the office of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee there were certain interpolations suggesting that the applications for the traders' licences could not have been made on the date on which they were stated to have been made and hence the allegation that the applications had been notified calling for objections within seven days, was not true. It is" not necessary to deal with this part of the case, since I am of the view that the orders passed by the tahsildar, including the 48 names of the respondents in the voters' list can be set aside on any one of the two grounds, namely that the applicants were not qualified to apply on the date on which they made the applications and that after they acquired the qualification seven days' notice was not given tc the persons who were interested in raising objections to the inclusion of their names. ( 10 ) IN the result, the order passed by the Tahsildar including the 48 persons i e. , respondents 3 to 50 in WP. 4057 1975, is set aside and a direction is issued to him not to permit these 48 persons to exercise their votes at the election in question. ( 11 ) IN the instant case, the poll had to take place on 13-9-1075. It could not take place on that day by reason cf the interim orders issued by this court. The Tahsildar-Returning Officer is new directed to proceed with the election from the Traders' Constituency by fixing convenient dates for the events to follow from the stage at which it was interrupted by the interim orders passed by this Court in accordance with law and the directions contained herein. ( 12 ) THESE petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as "to" costs. " ( 13 ) LET a copy of this orderbe sent to the Tahsildar-Returning Officer within one week. --- *** --- .