P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Application arises out of the election for the constituency of agriculturists which was held on 30/11/1985 and the results of which were declared on 1-12-1985, in connection with Patan Agricultural Produce market Committee. The election came to be challenged and till today, even after lapse of about 3 years, the elected candidates have not been able to assume office because of the present litigation and the old Committee continues to occupy the office, though its term had expired in 1985, including the Chairman who has lost in this election. ( 2 ) THE present applicants (appellants) are the original petitioners who challenged the election of the candidates elected from the constituency of agriculturists. That constituency consists of the members of Managing Committee of Co-operative Societies. One of the applicants is a brother of the Chairman of the outgoing Market Committee who had lost election in Dccmebcr 1985 and who continues to occupy the office even after expiry of his term, because the newly elected members of the market Committee have not been able to assume office. ( 3 ) THE applicants submit that they have very strong prima facie case and the election is likely to be set aside and therefore the ad interim relief which is already granted for maintaining status quo should be continued till the appeal is decided. It is contended that since the Letters Patent appeal is admitted, the judgment of the learned single Judge is required to be stayed and the elected members arc required to be restrained from participating in the election of President and vice-Prcsidcnt and the election of the President and Vice-Prcsident is required to be stayed. ( 4 ) IT is contended that 22 members of the managing Committee were required to be included in the voters list and the authorised officer had illegally refused to include names in the voters list and continued 22 other names in the voters list which should have been excluded and because of such illegal inclusion and illegal exclusion of voters in the voters list, the resultant election is illegal and is required to be set aside. It is further submitted that the director who heard the election petition under rule 28 had appreciated this aspect and set aside the election and the learned Single Judge has erred in reversing, that judgment and confirming the election result. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that there is no substance whatsoever in the Letters Patent appeal and there is no prima facie case and merely because the Letters Patent Appeal admitted, it does not mean that the appeal is likely to be allowed. He has submitted that the names of 22 members which were requested to be added on 10/11/1985 were after the date for inclusion of new names and therefore the authorised officer had rightly rejected their request for inclusion of their names. Since the request was rightly and legally rejected, there was no illegality in the election. It is further contended that moreover it has not been proved that the other 22 voters who were included in the voters list and had voted at the election nor is there any evidence; to show that they had voted, for whom they had voted. If some of them had voted, they might have voted for the defeated candidates, and even if some might have voted for the returned candidates, many others might have voted for defeated candidates and therefore it will be highly speculative to say anything as to how they had voted at the election and whether the election result is materially affected. In such speculative circumstances, no election can be set aside. It is for the persons challenging the election to conclusively prove that because of the alleged illegalities, the election result has been materially affected. In absence of any such finding, no election can be set aside much less be stayed, and the irreparable loss is necessary to the returned candidates if they are prevented from occupying the office. On the other hand, if the interim relief is refused, the applicants have no irreparable damage whatsoever to suffer and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the returned candidates. ( 6 ) IT is true that the Letters Patent Appeal is admitted. However, that docs not necessarily mean that it is likely to be allowed. On the other hand, if the interim relief is refused, the applicants have no irreparable damage whatsoever to suffer and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the returned candidates. ( 6 ) IT is true that the Letters Patent Appeal is admitted. However, that docs not necessarily mean that it is likely to be allowed. Appeal may be admitted because it might require some consideration and cannot be disposed of summarily but that does not necessarily mean that whenever any appeal is admitted, there is a case that the appeal is likely to be allowed. Moreover, in election matters, Court should be reluctant in preventing the elected candidates from occupying their office. The election is the very heart of democracy and election process is such a process that at some stage or the other, there may be something on which an argument can be based challenging the election. The election procedure and the process involves several stages and it is not difficult for an intelligent man to raise ground for challenging the election. However, merely because arguable questions are raised, it does not necessarily mean that the elected candidates arc to be prevented from holding their elected office. It would be virtually stay against democratic process and functioning of democracy before coming to the conclusion that the democratic process was materially vitiated and that the election is required to be set aside. ( 7 ) IN the present case, in a constituency of more than 600 voters, there is a dispute about 22 voters and there is no evidence whatsoever whether any of these 22 voters have voted at the election and if some of them have voted, how they have voted. In absence of any such allegation, much less any such evidence materially affecting the election, it would be improper to prevent such successfully elected candidates from functioning in their elected office. In absence of any such allegation, much less any such evidence materially affecting the election, it would be improper to prevent such successfully elected candidates from functioning in their elected office. In this country, we have adopted democratic principle in many public institutions, right from the Parliament to Panchayat and co-operative Societies, Market Committees and many other local authorities, Judicial notice also be taken of the fact that persons aggreived by the election results and democratic process seek to challenge the election results in different forum and more often, this challenge fails, and therefore until any challenge Succeeds, no elected candidate should be prevented from occupying the elected office except in extraordinary circumstances, because that would be virtually injunction against functioning of democratic process and there would be irreparable loss not only to the elected candidate, but to the electorate which elected such candidate and to the public interest which has followed such democratic principles. On the other hand, there is no irreparable loss to the persons who- are aggreived by the election result. If they succeed in their challenge, the election can be set aside, but if the challenge to the election fails after a long litigation, the interim relief, if granted, would irreparably harm the elected candidates and their democratic function. ( 8 ) IN the present case, the only argument that has been raised is regarding inclusion and pon- inclusion of some voters in the voters list. It is an admitted position that it is not shown that the election result is materially affected because of such alleged illegality. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted thatregarding other two constituencies also, namely Traders Constituency and co-operative Marketing Societies Constituency, writ petitions are pending challenging the election. It is submitted that in the Traders constituency, there is no interim orders and in the Co-operative Marketing Societies Constituency there is ad interim order. However, that would make no difference for consideration of this case on merits for the purpose of granting or refusing interim relief. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, the elected candidates, have placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Agricultural produce Market Committee, Bhavnagar v. State of Gujarat and Anr. 1989 (1) GLR 617 . ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, the elected candidates, have placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Agricultural produce Market Committee, Bhavnagar v. State of Gujarat and Anr. 1989 (1) GLR 617 . There, the learned Single Judge has observed that the petition was required to be rejected on the ground that it lacked in good faith and bona fides and if entertained and allowed, it would amount to assisting abuse of process of law. ( 11 ) ANOTHER judgment relied upon is in the case of Chauhan Husaihbhai Alibhai v. State of Gujarat, 1984 (2) GLR 1515 (= 1985 GLH 523 ). There also, the learned Single Judge had depricated the tactics of the persons in position of power of the outgoing office to continue to hold the power even after they have no legal or moral right and the term had expired. Both these judgments have clear application so far as consideration of interim relief is concerned. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the interim relief against the elected candidates and their functioning in their elected office cannot be continued. Hence, the ad interim relief granted earlier is required to be vacated and is hereby vacated. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that the orders vacating ad interim relief be stayed for a period of six weeks to enable him to go to the Supreme Court. The order passed by us today is stayed for a period of three weeks. .