JUDGMENT - DHARMADHIKARI C.S., J.:---As all these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In all these writ petitions the provisions of section 13(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), are challenged on the ground that the are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Dr. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all writ petitions, contended before us that within the same class of co-operative societies, which have a right to vote, there is discrimination because the strength of the members of the Managing Committees of agricultural credit societies and multipurpose co-operative societies are entirely determined by the bye-laws of such societies, and the statute (i.e. Co-operative Societies Act or Rules framed thereunder) does not control it. As a result, thereof, the members of the Managing Committees of such co-operative societies vary in number. Thus within the same class of co-operative societies, since the strength of the members of the Managing Committees vary, each co-operative society has different number of votes. By this 'one member one vote' principle gets vitiated. Further within the same class of Agricultural Credit Society or multipurpose co-operative societies, there could be different number of votes, depending upon the strength of Managing Committees. Thus equals are treated unequally. 4. To the similar effect is the position qua the Village Panchayat. As per the provisions of section 10(1)(a) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 the Collector is given power to fix the number of members of a village panchayat between 7 to 15. Thus there could be different voting right qua different village panchayats, depending upon their membership. Each village panchayat is a body corporate under section 9 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. Therefore, unequal voting rights are conferred on the village panchayat depending upon its members, which is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also contended by Dr. Naik that there is no classification in that behalf nor the classification, if any, is based upon any intelligible differentia distinguishing those that are put together from the others left out of the group. Further the differentia does not have any rational relation or nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the said Act. Naik that there is no classification in that behalf nor the classification, if any, is based upon any intelligible differentia distinguishing those that are put together from the others left out of the group. Further the differentia does not have any rational relation or nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the said Act. In support of this contention he has placed strong reliance upon the decision of this Court reported in 1985(2) Bom.C.R. 213 , (Jaisingrao Pandurang Badadare and etc. v. State of Maharashtra others)1. 5. On the other hand it is contended by Shri C.J. Sawant, Shri Gangal, A.G.P. and Shri Sawant A.V., learned Counsel appearing for respondents that the law laid down by this Court in Jaisingrao Pandurang Badadare and others case is not applicable to the provisions of the present Act. By section 13 right to vote is not conferred upon the co-operative society but is conferred upon the individual members of the Managing Committee of the society concerned. A right to contest is conferred upon an agriculturist. By section 13(1)(a) only electoral college is specified. Similar is the position qua illegal panchayats. In this context the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have relied upon the provisions of section 27 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. According to them this is not a case where it could be said that the principle of one member one vote is infringed. Under section 27 of the Co-operative Societies Act with which this Court was concerned in Jaisingrao Pandurang Badadare's case, the co-operative society itself was treated as a member and, therefore, this Court held that the proviso to the said section was ultra vires. The position qua the present enactment is altogether different and distinct, therefore, the law laid down therein is not applicable to the present case. 6. For properly appreciating the controversy raised before us, it will be worthwhile if the relevant provisions of section 13 which deals with Constitution of Market Committees are reproduced : "13(1)(a). The position qua the present enactment is altogether different and distinct, therefore, the law laid down therein is not applicable to the present case. 6. For properly appreciating the controversy raised before us, it will be worthwhile if the relevant provisions of section 13 which deals with Constitution of Market Committees are reproduced : "13(1)(a). Ten agriculturists residing in the market area (not being less than twenty-one years of age on the date specified from time to time by the Collector in this behalf, seven of whom shall be elected by members of the Managing Committees of the agricultural credit societies and multipurpose co-operative societies within the meaning of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and the Rules made thereunder, functioning in the market area; and three shall be elected by members of village panchayats functioning therein. (b) three shall be elected by traders and commission agents holding licensee to operate as such in the market area." 7. It is by now well settled that right to vote or stand as a candidate for election is not a civil right, nor a fundamental right but is a creature of statute or special law and must be subject to the limitation imposed by it. The object of the Act is to regulate the marketing of agricultural and other produce in the market areas. For this purpose certain powers are conferred upon the market committees to be constituted as per the provisions of the Act. From the bare reading of section 13(1)(a) it is quite clear that the right to contest election is conferred upon an agriculturist. The expression 'agriculturist' is defined in section 2(1)(b) of the said Act. Out of 10 agriculturists residing in the marketing area, 7 are to be elected by the members of the Managing Committees of the Agricultural Credit Societies and multipurpose co-operative societies within the meaning of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Rules made thereunder, functioning in the market area and three are to be elected by the members of the Village Panchayats functioning therein. The voting right is not conferred on the co-operative society as such nor on the village panchayat. It is conferred upon the members of the Managing Committees or the elected members of the village panchayat. The voting right is not conferred on the co-operative society as such nor on the village panchayat. It is conferred upon the members of the Managing Committees or the elected members of the village panchayat. Thus the provisions of section 27 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and section 13 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1963 are neither pari materia nor identical. If representation is not given to the corporate body nor the voting rights are conferred upon it, then obviously the law laid down by this Court in Jaisingrao Pandurang Badadare's case will not apply to the present enactment. As to who will constitute the electoral college, is laid down by section 13(1)(a) of the said Act. Each member of the Managing Committee of the Agricultural Credit Society or multipurpose co-operative societies has one vote so also each member of the village panchayat. Right to vote itself is conferred upon the members of the Managing Committee as well as the elected members of the village panchayat in their individual capacity. This is akin to section 27 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 wherein a right to vote is conferred upon the members of the local bodies. In this view of the matter in our view the contention raised by Dr. Naik cannot be accepted. The very premises on which the arguments are based, are non-existent. As already held it is not the intention of the Legislature to give representation or a right to vote to the body corporate as such but voting right is conferred upon the members of the Managing Committees and village panchayats. Therefore, only because the strength of the Managing Committee or the village panchayat differs, it cannot be said that there is any hostile discrimination or the principle of one person one vote is in any way violated. This was the only contention raised and argued before us. Hence Rule is discharged in all these writ petitions with no order as to costs. Order accordingly. -----