JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioners, who are agriculturists residing in the market area of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pandhurna, have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the election of members to the Krishi Upaj Mandi samiti, Pandhurna. ( 2. ) IT appears that in all 11 members have to be elected to the Krishi Upaj Mandi samiti, out of them nine are to be from the constituency of agriculturists, including two reserved seats one for scheduled caste and another for scheduled tribe candidates, and two from the constituency of traders. The election programme was announced, election officer was appointed on 20-9-1985, the constituencies were to be finalised on 27-9-1985, a preliminary voters list was to be published on 30-9-1985, objections were to be received on 1-10-1985 which were to be considered on 2-10-1985 the final voters list was to be published on 4-10-1985, nomination papers were to be accepted oh 12-10-1985, scrutiny of the nomination papers was to be done on 14-10-1985, acceptance or rejection of nomination paper was to be done on 16-10-1985, the last date of withdrawal of nomination paper was to be on 20-10-1985, the election was to be held on 28-10-85 and the result was to be declared on 29-10-1985. ( 3. ( 3. ) THE grounds of challenge are : (i) that the voters list was not properly prepared, inasmuch as, it included names of co-opted panchas; under section 11 (1) (A) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, members who represent agriculturists are to be elected by Panchas of the Gram Panchayat and the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the Agriculture Service Co-operative Societies within the constituencies, but by M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Tritiya Sanshodhan) Adhyadesh, 1985, section 11 (1) (A)has been amended and now the members who represent agriculturists are to be elected by the elected Panchas of the Gram Panchayat and elected Chairman and vice-Chairman of the Agriculture Service Co-operative Societies and as such the co-opted panchas could not have been included in the voters list; (ii) Originally as per the election programme, the date for withdrawal of nomination paper was 20-10-1985 but subsequently the programme has been amended and the date has been changed to 17-10-1985, as such many of the candidates could not withdraw their nomination papers in time because of the change in the programme; and (iii) the nomination papers of petitioners 1 to 3 were wrongly rejected on the ground that in column No. 3 relating to fathers name, grandfathers name was also given and the nomination paper of petitioner No. 5 has been rejected on the ground that his brother is running a flour mill and, therefore, he could not be an agriculturist and as such section 11 (1) (A) of the adhiniyam is unreasonable and ultra vires, as it does not include any person in the category of agriculturists if some of his relations are traders. The intervenors have added additional ground by challenging the vires of section 11 of the Adhiniyam as unconstitutional, since it provides only two reserved seats, one for scheduled caste and another for scheduled tribe, without fixing the number in proportion to their population in the Krishi Upaj Mandi and as such it violates Articles 330 and 332 Of the Constitution. ( 4. ) FIRST of all it is proper to consider the validity of section 11a of the Adhiniyam in the light of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution. ( 4. ) FIRST of all it is proper to consider the validity of section 11a of the Adhiniyam in the light of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution. This section provides that in case the market committee having eight or less than eight members of agriculturists, then only one seat has to be reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates and in case the market committee having more than eight representatives of agriculturists, one seat has to be reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate and another for Scheduled Tribe candidate has to be reserved. It is, therefore, evident that under this section the number of seats for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates is not fixed in proportion to their population in the Krishi Upaj Mandi area. Under Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution, the number of seats reserved to the scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates in any State shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats allotted to that State, the population of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes in the State, bears to the total population of the State. But Articles 330 and 332 have no application for an election of members to a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. These Articles are for the elections to the lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha. The Supreme Court in Sakhawat Ali vs. State of Orissa a. I. R. 1955 S. C. 166, has held that there is no fundamental right in any person to stand as a candidate in the Municipal election, the fundamental right which is guaranteed is that of practising any profession, or carry on any occupation, trade or business. In E. Sulaiman vs. H. G. Mohammad AIR 1980 S. C. 354, the Supreme Court has further held that the right to stand as a candidate to contest an election is not a common law right, it is a special right created by statute and can only be exercised on the conditions laid down by the statute. The fundamental rights Chapter has no bearing on a right like this created by a statute and the appellant has no fundamental right to be elected as a member of Parliament. Therefore, the right to be elected or get elected to the Krishi upaj Mandi Samiti is a statutory right provided by the Adhiniyam and it is not a fundamental right. Therefore, the right to be elected or get elected to the Krishi upaj Mandi Samiti is a statutory right provided by the Adhiniyam and it is not a fundamental right. The statute having provided only one seat for Scheduled Caste and scheduled Tribe candidate in case of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti consisting of eight members or less than eight members or representatives of agriculturists arid two seats, one for Scheduled Caste and another for Scheduled Tribe candidate, in case the mandi Samiti consists of more than eight representatives of agriculturists, it cannot be claimed as of right that it should be in proportion to their population. The Division bench decision of this court in Baijnath vs. Govt. of M. P. 1979 MPLJ 679 , is clearly distinguishable, wherein it was held that reservation of seats to Scheduled Caste and scheduled Tribe candidates would be in propertion to their population in the municipality. Section 29 of the Muinicipalities Act, 1961 provides that reservation of seats for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates should be fixed in accordance with Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution. In the Municipalities Act there was a specific provision for reservation of seats for Scheduled Caste and scheduled Tribe candidates in accordance with Articles 330 and 332 of the constitution. Therefore, section 11a of the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 is not ultra vires of the Constitution, as it does not infringe any fundamental right nor any provision of the Constitution in regard to reservation of seats for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates because it is not in proportion to their percentage in the total pupulation in the Krishi Upaj Mandi. ( 5. ) UNDER Rule 44 of the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Adhisuchna Prakashan Riti, bharasadhak Samiti Tatha Mandi Samiti Gathan) Niyam, 1974, amongst others, an election can be challenged by filing an election petition on the grounds that (i) any nomination has been improperly rejected and (ii) so far as it concerns an elected candidate has been materially affected by (a) improper acceptance of any vote or reception of any vote which is void, or (b) any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or any rules or order made thereunder. There fore wrongful rejection of a nomination paper or improper receipt of a vote or non-compliance with any provision of the Act or the Rules can be a ground for challenging any election in an election petition. Therefore, there being an alternative remedy of election petition, we refuse to adjudicate on this point in this writ petition. ( 6. ) AGRICULTURIST has been defined in section 2 (b) of the Adhiniyam as a person whose source of livelihood is wholly dependent on agricultural produce and who cultivates land on ones one account, but did not include a trader, commission agent, or a professional man, who may also be engaged in the production of agricultural produce, which means that his source of livelihood should be agriculture. There is nothing wrong with the definition and it is not ultra vires or unreasonable. Whether the petitioners nomination papers were rightly or wrongly rejected can be agitated in an election petition. It is evident that in view of the amendment in section 11 (1) (A) of the act the representatives of the agriculturists are to be elected by the elected Panchas and elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Agricultural Service Co-operative society. Before the amendment, they were to be elected by the Panchas and chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Agricultural Service Co-operative Societies. The addition of the word elected before panchas is quite significant. According to us coopted Panchas do not include elected Panchas. Under the M. P. Gram Panchayat election and Co-option Rules, 1982, Co-options of the Panchas have to be done in accordance with section 11 of the Act and in case there was more than a candidate the election shall be held by secret ballot. The learned Additional Advocate General, in view of this Rule, contended that the co-opted Panchas are also elected Panchas and inclusion of their names in the voters list was not invalid. There is no merit in this contention. If elected Panchas also include co-opted Panchas, then there was no necessity of adding the word elected before panchas in the original section in place of Panchas. Therefore names of co-opted Panchas could not have been included in the voters list. But it appears from the averment in the petition that the voters list of a reserved constituency consisted of 544 voters out of them 10 were co-opted Panchas. Therefore names of co-opted Panchas could not have been included in the voters list. But it appears from the averment in the petition that the voters list of a reserved constituency consisted of 544 voters out of them 10 were co-opted Panchas. Even if these 10 names were wrongly added in the voters list that would not have materially affected the election and cannot be a ground for setting aside the election. A Division Bench of this Court in Idenadas vs. Election Officer, Khandwa 1966 MPLJ 242, has held :-"in elections to a democratic body the preparation of a proper and correct roll is all important. Even then every defect or irregularity caused by the negligence in efficiency or breach of rules by the authorities entrusted with the preparation of the roll would not necessarily invalidate the role and the election held on its basis would not be totally illegal. The real question in connection with the validity of an electonal roll is whether because of errors or omissions or irregularities the roll has become fundamentally defective and imperfect in its most essential and mandatory ingredients and whether the roll fails to effectuate its true purpose and object of a proper election. The answer to this question must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, the nature and extent of the breach of rules, irregularity or error and the circumstances in which it was committed. " In that case it was further observed that wrong inclusion or exclusion of certain names from the voters list by itself will not make the election illegal unless it materially affects the election, the proper remedy for which is to file an election petition. That was a case under the M. P. Panchayats Act, 1963 since repealed. ( 7. ) WITH the result the petition fails and it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioners. Petition dismissed.