JUDGMENT : N. P. Singh, J. - Petitioners are voters of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Barh (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Market Committee') and they have questioned the validity of the procedure adopted by the respondent Election Officer for holding election of the members of the said market committee from the agriculturists constituency. 2. According to the petitioners, on 29.1.1982 a provisional voter list was published inviting objections as required by rule 5 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules'). The last date fixed for filing objection was 27.2.1982. On 22.3.1982 a notification was published saying that in partial modification to the notice dated 29.1.1982 aforesaid the area of the different constituencies notified earlier were being altered in exercise of the powers under rules 2 (7) and 3 (6); any person desiring to file an objection can file objection on or before 11.4.1982 regarding the division of the constituencies. A copy of that notice is Annexure-3 to the writ application. Petitioner no. 8 filed his objection on 12.4.1982 as 11.4.1982 was a Sunday. That objection was rejected by the Election Officer on 24.5.1982 saying that it had been filed beyond time. On 239.1982 an election programme was published giving out the dates for filing nomination papers sand holding of election to different constituencies 28.11.1982 was fixed as the date for holding of the election including from the agriculturists constituency in which the petitioners were interested. Before the election could be held the present writ application was filed making a grievance that after dividing the seven constituencies meant for agriculturists by notification dated 22.3.1982, referred to above, the voter lists for seven agriculturists constituencies were not separately prepared nor any objection was invited as required by rule 5, and, as such, election from agriculturists constituencies could not be held. This Court at the time of admission of the application stayed the holding of the election from the agriculturists constituencies. 3. Rule 3 provides as to how the seats relating interests are to be allocated. This Court at the time of admission of the application stayed the holding of the election from the agriculturists constituencies. 3. Rule 3 provides as to how the seats relating interests are to be allocated. Rule 3 (i) and (v), which are relevant for the present case are as follows: "3(i) For the purpose of election of even of agriculturists under cause (1) of sub-section (1) of section 9, the market area shall be divided into seven constituencies, which shall be called agriculturists constituency, in such manner that number of voters does not exceed one-seventh of the total number of voters of the market area in question, so that one agriculturist may be elected from each such constituency." "(v) Where it is not possible to divide the market area strictly in the manna specified above, a maximum variation of 15 per cent shall be permissible in case of each constituency." In view of the aforesaid provisions for the purposes of election of 7 agriculturists, market area has to be divided into 7 constituencies in a manner that number of voters does not ex "5(1) The Election Officer shall cause to be prepared separate lists of voters qualified to vote for each of agriculturists constituency, traders' constituency, co-operative Societies constituency and local authorities' constituency referred to in sub-section (1) of section 9. Every such list shall be revised for each triennial election, at least four months before the date on which the term of market committee is due to expire." In view of rule 5 (iii) and (iv) the voter list prepared under rule 5 has to be published for general information and the Election Officer has to fix a date not later than 30 days from the date of publication of the list before which "any application for inclusion, correction of any entry shall reach him". Sub-rule (iv) further requires the Election Officer to give the objector a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to decide the objection received before the date so fixed. Rule 5 (v) enjoins the Election Officer to amend the voter list in accordance with the ORDER :passed under rule 5 (iv) and then cause the same to be published finally in the manner prescribed under sub-rule (iii). Rule 5 (v) enjoins the Election Officer to amend the voter list in accordance with the ORDER :passed under rule 5 (iv) and then cause the same to be published finally in the manner prescribed under sub-rule (iii). Rule 7 prescribes that won after the final publication of the list of voters under rule 5 (v) the Election Officer shall call upon the constituency to elect their representatives to the Market Committee on a date fixed by him in this behalf. 4. From a plain reading of the rules 3 and 5 aforesaid it is apparent that first the market area is to be divided into 7 constituencies for election of 7 agriculturists taking into consideration the number of voters in the market area. Thereafter, the Election Officer has to prepare "separate lists of voters qualified to vote for each of the agriculturists constituency." In other words, before the date for election is fixed separate lists of voters qualified to vote for each agriculturists constituency have to be prepared by the Ejection Officer and objection has to be invited after publication of the provisional voters list within the time fixed by the Election Officer. After disposal of objection, if any, under rule 7 the constituencies have to be called upon to elect their representatives on the date fixed by Election Officer. 5. In the present case, it is an admitted position that provisional voter list was published under rule 5 on 29.1.1982 and the notice invited objection by 27.2.1982. Thereafter, on 22.3.1982 the market area was divided into 7 agriculturists constituencies and objection will invited as required by rule 3. There is no dispute that after de-limitation of the market area into 7 constituencies no separate voter list for each of the 7 agriculturists constituencies has been prepared as required by rule 5 (i). 6. Mr. Alakh Raj Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Market Committee submitted that the market area could have been divided into 7 constituencies only after finalisation of the voters lists as required by role 5. According to Mr. Pandey, when role 3 requires the market area to be divided into 7 constituencies on basis of the voter it is not possible to do so unless first the voter list is finalised. In my opinion, this contention is not supported by the scheme of the Rules. According to Mr. Pandey, when role 3 requires the market area to be divided into 7 constituencies on basis of the voter it is not possible to do so unless first the voter list is finalised. In my opinion, this contention is not supported by the scheme of the Rules. When role 5 speaks of preparation of "separate lists of voters qualified to vote for each of the agriculturists constituencies" it pre-supposes that the 7 agriculturists constituencies have already been created under rule 3. Similarly, when rule 3 speaks of dividing the market area into 7 agriculturists constituencies it requires the Election Officer to divide the same on basis of the draft/tentative voter list. Perhaps, that is the reason why under rule 3(v) a variation upto 15% has been allowed keeping in view the revision of the said voter list on basis of the objection filed under rule 5 of the Rules. 7. In the instant case provisional voter list was published on 29.1.1982 directing that objection, if any, should be filed in accordance with rule 5. 27.2.1982 was the last date for filing objection. On 22.3.1982 suddenly notice was issued under rule 3 dividing the market area into 7 agriculturists constituencies. On the admitted facts it is apparent that after division of the market area into 7 agriculturists constituencies, neither the voter list in accordance with rule 5 has been published nor any objection invited. That having not been done, in my opinion, no election could have been held without complying with the requirements of rule 5. In such a situation, I am left with no option but to direct the respondents to follow the procedure prescribed under rule 5 again in view of the fact that the respondents themselves have re-divided the market area by notice dated 22.3.1982 after finalisation of the voter list. 8. In the result, this writ application is allowed with the direction and observations given above. In the circumstances of the case, there snail be no ORDER :as to costs.