R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard today. ( 2 ) THE eight petitioners were elected under S. 11 (1) (i) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963. Their election was challenged by the respondents Nos. 6 to 13 who had also contested the election and lost the same. The election was challenged on the only ground that the voters list was prepared on illegal principle and the election based on such illegal voters list has to be necessarily set aside. It was submitted that 13 members of the managing committee of Boratwada Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. were illegally included in the voters list of the constituency of agriculturists and they had voted at the election and, therefore, the election is illegal. The election was challenged under Rule 28 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 which provides that if the validity of any election of a member of the Market Committee is brought in ques-tion, the Director shall, after giving an opportunity to the applicant of being heard and after making such inquiry as he deems fit, pass an order confirming or amending the declared result of election or setting the election aside and such order shall be final. The Director, by his order dated 28/05/1992, confirmed the declaration of the result. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved thereby, the respond-ents Nos. 6 to 13 preferred a revision applica-tion before the Government under S. 45 of the Act and the Government allowed that revi-sion application and set aside the order of the Director and directed fresh elections to be held. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of the Government in revision is illegal because the Government had illegally assumed revisional jurisdiction while the order of the Director was "final" under Rule 28 (2 ). It is also submitted that the names of 13 voters of Boratwada Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. were rightly and legally entered in the voters list and thirdly, on the ground that even if the Government had revisional jurisdiction and even if the voters were wrongly included in the voters list, the result cannot be set aside merely on the ground that some names are included in the voters list wrongly and unless it is shown that the election result is materially affected by such illegality. ( 5 ) ON the last question, the matter can be finally decided and, therefore, the other questions are not gone into. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the contesting respondents relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh, AIR 1980 SC 1612 . Para 10 of the said judgment is strongly relied by the contesting respondents which reads as under :-"the illegal preparation of the electoral roll by the Delhi Bar Council on the basis of the invalid proviso to R. 3 (j) goes to the very root of the matter and no election held on the basis of such an infirmity can be upheld. There is no question of the result being materially affected in such a case. "it is also submitted that unlike the provi-sions in the Representation of the People Act, in the Gujarat Panchayats Act and Gujarat Municipalities Act, where there is an express provision for showing that the election result has been materially affected, for setting aside the election, there is no such provision in the present Act or Rules and, therefore, once it is shown that the names in the voters list are wrongly included on some illegal principle, the whole basis of the election vitiated and, therefore, the entire election is to be set aside. ( 7 ) THE facts of the Bar Counsel case (supra) before the Supreme Court were that the proviso to Rule 3 (j) of the Bar Council of India Rules, Chapter I, Part III provided that the electoral roll shall not include names of such advocates who fail to file in the Office of the Bar Council, on or before such date as may be notified by the Bar Council, a declaration in the prescribed form. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that this proviso requiring the declaration was ultra vires and invalid. The final electoral roll prepared on the basis of this ultra vires proviso excluded names of about 2000 advocates who had failed to file such declaration forms and only about 3000 names were included in the electoral roll in accordance with the proviso to Rule 3 (j) of the election rules of the Bar Council of Delhi. The final electoral roll prepared on the basis of this ultra vires proviso excluded names of about 2000 advocates who had failed to file such declaration forms and only about 3000 names were included in the electoral roll in accordance with the proviso to Rule 3 (j) of the election rules of the Bar Council of Delhi. In para 9 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows :-"we, therefore, hold that the impugned proviso to R. 3 (j) to the Delhi Bar Council Election Rules is ultra vires and invalid and the electoral roll prepared by the Delhi Bar Council on the basis of the same resulting in the exclusion of the names of about 2000 advocates from the said roll was not valid in law. We are further of the opinion that the whole election was invalid on that account and it could be challenged as such in a writ petition. It was not a case of challenging the preparation of the electoral roll on the factual basis of wrong exclusion of a few names. For the said purpose, R. 4 occurring in Chapter I of the Bar Council of India Rules could come into play. But here, because of the invalidity of the Rules itself, the preparation of the electoral roll was completely vitiated - a matter which cannot be put within the narrow limit of the said rule. "the present case before us cannot be compared with that case where the voters list was prepared on, the basis of ultra vires proviso wherein nearly 40% of the electorate was excluded from the voters list and the electoral roll of hardly 60% voters was adopted. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the contesting respondents also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Babubhai Kashibhai v. Deputy Collector, 15 GLT 220 (sic ). In that case, the voters list was challenged before the election on the ground that there was illegal constitution of wards and there was breach of principles of equal population in each ward and in that case the election was not under challenge at all. Therefore, this case is of no assistance in the present case. In that case, the voters list was challenged before the election on the ground that there was illegal constitution of wards and there was breach of principles of equal population in each ward and in that case the election was not under challenge at all. Therefore, this case is of no assistance in the present case. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the contesting respondents also submitted that there is no express provision that it is to be shown and proved that the election result is not mate-rially affected. It is not possible to uphold this contention. It is true that there is no express provision like the Representation of the People Act, Gujarat Panchayats Act and the Gujarat Municipalities Act. Nonetheless, the power is given to the authority under S. 28 of determining the validity of the election and the authority has jurisdiction to pass an order confirming or amending the declared result of the election or setting aside the election and therefore, unless the authority is satisfied and it is proved to its satisfaction that the election result is materially affected, the election result cannot be set aside. In all elections, the election procedure is so elaborate and so long that it is always possible to find out some illegality or defect somewhere and merely because an illegality is committed which does not materially affect the election result, such illegality cannot have the consequences of vitiating the election. In the present case, even if it is assumed that 13 names of the voters were illegally included and that they had voted at the election, it cannot be assumed, that they had voted in a particular fashion in favour of a particular candidate. This would be pure speculation and conjecture and, therefore, on such speculation, the election result cannot be set aside. It is not sufficient in the case of election to show that there is some illegality. It is further necessary to show that such illegality has materially affected the election result. It is not that very illegality necessarily results in vitiating the election. If that were so, no election and no democratic process would ever be possible having regard to the elaborate and lengthy election procedure. It is further necessary to show that such illegality has materially affected the election result. It is not that very illegality necessarily results in vitiating the election. If that were so, no election and no democratic process would ever be possible having regard to the elaborate and lengthy election procedure. ( 10 ) IN view of the fact that the election result is not shown to have been materially affected, the order of the Government passed in the revision is required to be set aside and, therefore, the other two questions raised by the petitioners are not required to be gone into. ( 11 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the order dated 30/09/1992 passed by the State Government-respondent No. 1 and restoring the order at annexure-B passed by the Director. No costs the learned counsel for the contesting respondents states that they would like to approach the Supreme Court to challenge this order and, therefore, the order passed by this Court be stayed for a period of eight weeks. Therefore, this order is stayed for a period of three weeks only from today. Petition allowed. .