M. S. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) ALL these petitions raise certain common questions of law and challenge deletion of the petitioners names from the final lists of voters in different constituencies for elections to Agricultural Produce Market Committee, visnagar (hereafter referred to as "the A. P. M. C. " ). At the joint request of the learned counsels for all the parties, the petitions are, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) BEFORE examining the grievance of the petitioners and the defences raised by the respondents, it is necessary to have a look at certain provisions of the Gujarat agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 ("the Act" for brevity) and the Gujarat agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 ("the Rules" for brevity ). Section 2 of the Act contains definitions some of which read as under : (i) "agricultural produce means all produce, whether processed or not, of agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry, specified in the Schedule. (v) "co-operative marketing society" means a society registered or deemed to be registered as such under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (Guj. X of 1962), and engaged in the business of buying or selling of agricultural produce and holding a licence; (vi) "director" means the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, gujarat State; (vii) "general commission agent" means a trader who bona fide buys or sells or offers to buy or sell for an agreed commission, any agricultural produce on behalf of another person and does or offers to do anything necessary for completing and carrying out the transaction of such sale or purchase; (ix) "licence" means a licence granted under Sec. 6 or, as the case may be, a general or special licence granted under Sec. 27; (xviii) "retail sale" means a sale of any agricultural produce not exceeding such quantity as a market committee may by by-laws determine to be a retail sale in respect of such agricultural produce, (xix) "rules" means rules made under Sec. 59; (xxii) "trader" means any person, who carries on the business by buying or selling of agricultural produce or of processing of agricultural produce for sale and includes a cooperative society, joint family or an association of persons, whether incorporated or not, which carries on such business; section 11 of the Act read as under :"11. Constitution of market committee :- (1) Every market committee shall consist of the following members, namely :- (i) eight agriculturists who shall be elected by members of managing committees of co-operative societies (other than co-operative marketing societies) dispensing agricultural credit in the market area; (ii) four members to be elected in the prescribed manner from amongst themselves by the traders holding general licences; (iii) two representatives of the co-operative marketing societies situate in the market area and holding general licences, to be elected from amongst the members (other than nominal, associate or sympathiser members) of such societies by the members of the managing committees of such societies. " ( 3 ) SECTION 27 provides for issuance, renewal, suspension or cancellation etc. of licences to traders, general commission agents etc. and also for appeals against refusal, suspension etc. of licences. Sec. 28 empowers the market committee to levy and collect fees on the agricultural produce brought or sold in the market area through such agents as it may appoint. Section 8 read with Rule 56 prohibits persons from carrying on the business as a trader or as general commission agent in agricultural produce in any market area without holding the licence obtained from the market committee. Section 59 empowers the State Government to frame rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act including for the purpose of preparation and revision of list of voters for the purpose of any election under sec. 11, determination of the disputes arising in such election etc. Schedule to the act enumerates the various commodities which are considered to be agricultural produce including cereals, pulse, oil seeds, vegetables, animal husbandry products, condiments, spices etc. ( 4 ) IN exercise of powers conferred by Sec. 59 of the Act, the State Government has framed the Rules. Rule 4 provides that whenever a general election of a market committee is to be held, the Director shall, by an order in writing, fix a date of such election and publish such order. ( 4 ) IN exercise of powers conferred by Sec. 59 of the Act, the State Government has framed the Rules. Rule 4 provides that whenever a general election of a market committee is to be held, the Director shall, by an order in writing, fix a date of such election and publish such order. Rule 5 of the Rules provides for three separate lists of voters as under :" (i) A list of members of managing committees of co-operative societies dispensing agriculture credit in the market area; [under Sec. 11 (1) (i)] (ii) A list of traders holding general licences in the market; [under Sec. 11 (1) (ii)] and (iii) A list of members of managing committees of co-operative marketing societies situated in the market area holding general licences. [under Sec. 11 (1) (iii)]. "rule 6 states that a person whose name is entered in the list of voters shall be qualified to vote at an election to which list of voters relates. Rules 7 and 8 are relevant for the purposes of present group of petitions and therefore, they are quoted verbatim : "7. Preparation of list of voters for general election :- (1) Whenever a general election to market committee is to be held :- (i) every co-operative society dispensing agricultural credit in the market area shall communicate the full names of the members of its managing committee together with the place of residence of each member; (ii) the market committee shall communicate the full names of the traders holding general licences in the market area together with the place of or residence of each such trader; and (iii) every co-operative marketing society shall communicate the full names of the members of its managing committee together with the place of residence of each such member to the authorised officer before such date as the Director may by order fix in that behalf : provided that the date to be so fixed shall not be later than sixty days before the date of the general election. (2) The authorised officer shall within seven days from the date fixed under sub-rule (1) cause to be prepared the lists of voters as required by Rule 5 on the basis of the information received under sub-rule (1) and, if necessary, after making such inquiry as he may deem fit. (2) The authorised officer shall within seven days from the date fixed under sub-rule (1) cause to be prepared the lists of voters as required by Rule 5 on the basis of the information received under sub-rule (1) and, if necessary, after making such inquiry as he may deem fit. (3) Every list of voters shall show the full name, place of residence and the serial number of each voter. 8. Provisional and final publication of lists of voters :- (1) As soon as a list of voters is prepared under Rule 5, it shall be published by the authorised officer by affixing a copy thereof at the office of the market committee and at some conspicuous place in the principal market yard in the market area along with a notice stating that any person whose name is not entered in the list of voters and who claims that his name should be entered therein or any person who thinks that the name or the name of some other person has been wrongly entered therein or has not been correctly entered, may, within fourteen days from the date of the publication of the notice, apply to the authorised officer for an amendment of the list of voters. (1-A) After receiving applications, if any, under sub-rule (1) a revised draft list of voters shall be published by the authorised officer by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of agricultural produce market committee and at some conspicuous place in the principal market yard of the market area, alongwith a notice stating that any person who wishes to raise any objection against any new name entered in this list, may apply within seven days from the date of publication of this notice to the authorised officer for amendment in the revised draft list of voters. (2) If any application is received under sub-rule (1-A), the authorised officer shall decide the same and shall cause to be prepared and published the final list of voters, after making such amendments therein as may be necessary in pursuance of the decision given by him on the application. The final list shall be prepared at least thirty days before the date fixed for the nomination of candidates for the election. The final list shall be prepared at least thirty days before the date fixed for the nomination of candidates for the election. " ( 5 ) IT may be mentioned at this stage that the provisions of Rule 8 came to be amended with effect from 17/06/1989 and the aforesaid Rule 8 is after the amendment. However, prior to that amendment, Rule 8 read as under :"8. Provisional and final publication of lists of voters :- (1) As soon as a list of voters is prepared under Rule 5, it shall be published by the authorised officer by affixing a copy thereof at the office of the market committee and at some conspicuous place in the principal market yard in the market area along with a notice stating that any person whose name is not entered in the list of voters and who claims that his name should be entered therein or any person who thinks that his name or the name of some other person has been wrongly entered therein or has not been correctly entered, may, within fourteen days from the date of the publication of the notice, apply to the authorised officer for an amendment of the list of voters. (2) If any application is received under sub-rule (1), the authorised officer shall decide the same and shall cause to be prepared and published the final list of voters, after making such amendments therein as may be necessary in pursuance of the decision given by him on the application. The final list shall be prepared at least thirty days before the date fixed for the nomination of candidates for the election. " ( 6 ) RULES 11 to 17 provide for procedure for filing nomination papers, scrutiny and decision on nominations and withdrawal of candidature. Rules 18 to 27 deal with the procedural part and we are not concerned with the said Rules in the present group of petitions. Rule 28 reads as under : "28. " ( 6 ) RULES 11 to 17 provide for procedure for filing nomination papers, scrutiny and decision on nominations and withdrawal of candidature. Rules 18 to 27 deal with the procedural part and we are not concerned with the said Rules in the present group of petitions. Rule 28 reads as under : "28. Determination of validity of election :- (1) If the validity of any election of a member of the market committee is brought in question by any person qualified either to be elected or to vote at the election to which such question refers such person may, within seven days after the date of the declaration of the result of the this, in brief, is the scheme of the Act and the Rules relevant for the purposes of the present group of petitions. ( 7 ) THE election programme for the general election of Agricultural Produce market Committee, Visnagar, was published by the Director fixing the various stages of the election. The said election programme is as under : ( 21 ) MR. Anand and Mr. Thakkar for the respondents vehemently contended that on the question of availability of an alternative remedy and the applicability of the judgment of the Division Bench it makes no difference whether the persons names were included either in one of the lists (preliminary or provisional) and excluded from the final list or whether the names of the persons were included both in the preliminary and provisional lists but excluded from the final list. According to the respondents, the fact-situation before the Division Bench as narrated in paragraph 4 of the said judgment clearly shows that some of the petitioners in the cases before the Division Bench had their names included in the preliminary list dated 21/10/1987 as well as in the republished provisional list dated 7/11/1987 but, however, in the final list dated 25/11/1987 their names were deleted and that 743 names were so deleted from the final list without being given any opportunity of contesting the objections, if any, before their names came to be deleted from the final list of voters. Similarly, in respect of the third constituency before the Division Bench the names of 97 persons were included in the preliminary list as well as in the provisional list but, names of 21 persons were deleted from the final list. Similarly, in respect of the third constituency before the Division Bench the names of 97 persons were included in the preliminary list as well as in the provisional list but, names of 21 persons were deleted from the final list. Neither the said 21 persons nor the concerned societies were apprised of the objections, if any. ( 22 ) IT is true that the Division Bench was also concerned with cases where the names of persons were included in the preliminary as well as provisional lists but their names were deleted from the final list. It is important to remember that what the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the said matters before the Division Bench contended was (i) Rules 7 and 8 (as then prevailing) did not provide for the stage of republication of preliminary list of voters, (popularly known as provisional list) and therefore, the second preliminary list ought to be treated as the final list for the purpose of holding the elections; (ii) challenge to the validity of Rules 7 and 8 as violative of Art. 14 and 19 of the Constitution, if the first contention was not accepted. The Division Bench dealt with those contentions in the following words :"the contention of the petitioners is that Rules 7 and 8 do not contemplate the preparation and republication of a second preliminary list before the finalisation of the voters list and, therefore, the final list is not in conformity with the requirements of the said two Rules. In other words, the plea is that the action of the Authorised officer in preparing and publishing a second preliminary list of voters is clearly inconsistent with the requirements of Rule 7 and 8 of the Rules. If Mr. Vakharia is right in this contention, the final list of voters may be quashed or the election held on the basis thereof may be set aside by the forum created under Rule 28 of the Rules. In that case, the publication of the second preliminary list and consequently the finalisation of the voters list on the basis thereof may be declared ultra vires the rules; but that cannot make the Rules ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution, if otherwise they are not so. It is not the contention of Mr. Vakharia that Rules 7 and 8 as they stand on the statute book are ultra vires either Arts. It is not the contention of Mr. Vakharia that Rules 7 and 8 as they stand on the statute book are ultra vires either Arts. 14 or 19 of the constitution but what Mr. Vakharia argues is that if the action of the Authorised Officer is held to be consistent with the requirements of the said two Rules, then the Rules may be rendered ultra vires the Constitution. This is a hypothetical submission made by Mr. Vakharia which depends on what interpretation is put by the forum created under Rule 28 of the Rules while considering the submission that re-publication of a second preliminary list and inviting of objections thereon is inconsistent with Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules. This Court will not examine the validity of the concerned Rules on such hypothetical considerations. We are, therefore, of the opinion that we would not be justified in arresting the election process on this ground either. " ( 23 ) MR. Patel submitted that two important developments have taken place after the aforesaid Division Bench judgment was rendered on 21-12-1987 : (a) The Division Bench had left the interpretation of Rules 7 and 8 to the Election tribunal. In a subsequent matter arising after the decision of the Election tribunal, this Court interpreted the said Rule in the case of Desai dharamsinhbhai ( AIR 1990 Guj. 161 : 1989 (2) GLR 1195 ). (b) The provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules came to be amended with effect from 17/06/1989. As per the above quoted amended Rule 8 read with rule 7, there are following stages in the matter of the preparation of list of voters :- (i) The A. P. M. C. /co-op. Societies shall communicate the full names of traders/ members of managing committees with the place of residence of each such person to the authorised officer before such date as the Director may fix (26-12-1995 in the instant case.) [rule 7 (1)] (ii) Within seven days thereafter, the election officer shall prepare the list of voters on the basis of information received from the A. P. M. C. and, if necessary, after making such inquiry, as he may think fit. (2-1-1995 in the instant case.) This is popularly known as the preliminary list. (2-1-1995 in the instant case.) This is popularly known as the preliminary list. [rule 7 (2)] (iii) The preliminary list of voters is to be published by the election officer along with a notice inviting objections from persons - (a) whose names are not entered in the list and who claim that their names should be entered therein, (b) who think that their names or the names of some other persons have wrongly been entered therein, and (c) whose names have not been correctly entered. (2-1-1996 in the instant case) [rule 8 (1)] (iv) The period for receiving the objections against the preliminary list of voters after the publication of notice is 14 days from the date of publication. (Last date 16-1-1996 in the instant case.) [rule 8 (1)] (v) After considering the objections against the preliminary list the election officer has to prepare and publish a revised draft list of voters (popularly known as provisional list) along with a notice stating that any person who wishes to raise any objections against any new name entered in this list (i. e. revised draft list known as provisional list) within seven days from the date of publication of the notice, to the election officer for an amendment in the revised list of voters. [rule 8 (1-A)] (vi) The election officer has to decide only such applications for amendment which he has received under above sub-rule (1-A) and after deciding the same he has to prepare and publish the final list of voters after making such amendments therein as may be necessary in pursuance of the decision given by him on such applications under sub-rule (1-A ). This is as per Rule 8 (2 ). ( 24 ) THE contention of Mr. B. S. Patel for the petitioners in the first group of petitions is that the election officer had no authority or jurisdiction after 1 9/01/1996 to receive or consider any objections against the names of the persons whose names were included in the preliminary list as well as in the provisional list, more particularly because sub-rule (1-A) permits objections being lodged only against any new name entered in the provisional list. Since the names of the petitioners in the first group of petitions were already included in the preliminary list as well as in the provisional list, the election officer had no authority or jurisdiction to receive or consider any objection against the petitioners names and that therefore, exclusion of the petitioners names in the first group of petitions from the final list of voters was ex facie without authority and jurisdiction. ( 25 ) MR. Patel further heavily relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Desai Dharamsinhbhai ( AIR 1990 Guj. 161 ) interpreting old Rule 8 with Rule 7. Mr. Patel also submitted that some of the petitioners had already sent a letter dated 31-1-1996 (Annexure-F to S. C. A. No. 1229 to 1231 of 1996) to the election officer making the above submissions and enclosing a xerox copy of the said judgment and also of Rule 8 (1-A ). ( 26 ) THE reply on behalf of the respondents to the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Patel was to the effect that in the instant case the election officer had received a large number of objections against the names included in the preliminary list including the objections against the petitioners names and that it was on account of the fact that the election officer was assigned with the duty of conducting the elections of many other societies and he was hard-pressed for time that he could decide only some objections before 19/01/1996 and that therefore, after publication of the provisional list the remaining objections came to be decided by him thereafter but before publication of the final voters list on 7/02/1996. ( 27 ) THE affidavit-in-reply dated 7-3-1996 filed on behalf of respondentauthorities, in Special Civil Application Nos. 1229, 1230 and 1231 of 1996, clearly indicate that the election officer had already taken decision on the objections lodged against the inclusion of the names of the petitioners (in the first group) in the preliminary list (This is also corroborated by the contents of notice dated 19-1-1996, which were read out by Mr. 1229, 1230 and 1231 of 1996, clearly indicate that the election officer had already taken decision on the objections lodged against the inclusion of the names of the petitioners (in the first group) in the preliminary list (This is also corroborated by the contents of notice dated 19-1-1996, which were read out by Mr. Patel at the time of hearing) and it was thereafter that the objectors persisted with their objections may be by giving additional material and, therefore, names of the petitioners which were already included in the preliminary list as well as in the provisional list came to be deleted by the election officer in the final list dated 7-2-1996. Paras 7 to 11 and para 21 of the said affidavit read as under :"7. I say that as per Rule 76, the respective Agricultural Societies have to send the voters list to me by 26/12/1995. I say that thereafter preliminary voters list is published under Rule 7 (2) on 2/01/1996 alongwith the notice. 8. I say that as per Rule 8 addition and substitution can be done in the said voters list and applications are invited from applicants for addition or substitution in the said voters list within 14 days from that day, i. e. , on 16/01/1996. 9. I say that after considering the aforesaid amendment, provisional voters list was published alongwith the notice dated 19/01/1996. The notice also stated that any person who wants to make representation against the said voters list can do the same upto 2/02/1996 with necessary evidence in writing. 10. I say that 2/02/1996 was the last date fixed for submitting objection against the published provisional voters list. 11. I say that such applicants who raised objections against first primary voters list dated 2/01/1996 and who have not satisfied for continued same names in provisional list had given such applications with evidence and urged to look in the matter with facts till 2/02/1996. On receiving such applications I have considered all representations in this behalf objectively after considering the evidence on record and after taking into consideration all relevant factors in this behalf. "relevant portion of para 21 reads as under :"21. . . . . . . . I say that I cannot receive fresh applications from any new persons for inclusion of new names in the final voters list. "relevant portion of para 21 reads as under :"21. . . . . . . . I say that I cannot receive fresh applications from any new persons for inclusion of new names in the final voters list. But I say that such applicants who had given objections against primary voters list dated 2-1-1996 and who have not satisfied for continuing same names can give such application with evidence and request to look in the matter. On receiving such representations/applications I have considered in this behalf objectively after considering the evidence on record and after taking into consideration all relevant factors in this behalf. . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 28 ) A perusal of the affidavit-in-reply of the election officer clearly shows that while publishing the provisional list he had already rejected the objections against the inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the preliminary list, but since the objectors were not satisfied with the said decision, the same objectors submitted further objections or material against the same petitioners, hence as per his interpretation he cannot be said to have received any fresh objections. However, at the hearing of the petitions, the contention is that objections which were pending on 19-1-1996 after the publication of the provisional list dated 19- 1-1996 were decided. Even though such objections may not be fresh objections, the officers action in reviewing his decision of continuing such names in the provisional list was patently without authority as the specific language of sub-rules (1-A) and (2) of Rules 8 shows that after the publication of the provisional list of voters on 19-1-1996 the officer could have received and considered only those objections which were filed against a person whose name was for the first time included in the provisional list, i. e. , against any new name entered in the provisional list. The impugned decision of the election officer to delete or exclude names of the petitioners from the final list of voters is ex facie without authority. In the case of Patan F. and S. M. Ltd. v. Pali Shakbhaji S. M. Ltd. , 1986 GLH 430 a Division bench of this Court has already held that :" (1) Though the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Arts. In the case of Patan F. and S. M. Ltd. v. Pali Shakbhaji S. M. Ltd. , 1986 GLH 430 a Division bench of this Court has already held that :" (1) Though the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution is very wide, the Court should be slow in exercising the said jurisdiction where an alternative efficacious remedy under the Act is available. However, if the impugned order is an ultra vires order, or is a nullity as being ex facie without jurisdiction, the question of exhausting the alterative remedy could hardly arise. " ( 29 ) LET us assume that the submission made by the respondents at the time of hearing is correct, that is, the preliminary list was published on 2-1-1996, the last date for submitting the said objections was 16-1-1996 and after considering the said objections the provisional list was required to be published on 19-1-1996, i. e. , hardly within 3 days, the officer was required to decide the objections on or before 19/01/1996 but, because of pressure of a large number of objections, the officer could not decide all the objections before 19/01/1996. He, therefore, decided some of the objections after 19/01/1996 but, before publication of the final list on 7/02/1996. The learned Counsels for the respondents, therefore, very persuasively urged that in view of the fact that the officer was so hard-pressed for time and a large number of objections were filed, the delay in deciding the objections could not be held to be fatal and the consequent deletion of the petitioners names from the final list is not such that it can be said to be ex facie illegal or without authority; at the most, there was some delay in deciding the objections and that the persons who had lodged their objections before 16/01/1996 as well as the persons giving fresh material after 19/01/1996 were the same objectors against the same disputed names. It was further submitted that the objections were received prior to 16/01/1996 and, therefore, the Court may not take a strict view of the matter and should not disturb the provisional finality granted to the decision of the election officer at each stage and relied on the following observations of the Division Bench in the aforesaid case of Patan F. and S. S. M. Limited (supra) which were also followed by the Division Bench in the case of Mehsana District Co-op. S. and P. Union (supra) :"in that view of the scheme of the Act, we are of the opinion that the preparation of electoral roll is an integral part of the process of election. If that is so, the question as to whether the roll should be modified at the instance of persons claiming to be voters or at the instance of persons objecting to the inclusion of the names of some persons in the voters list is a matter relating to election, and having regard to the fact that it is a right conferred under the Act for which a special remedy has been provided, the Court should not exercise the jurisdiction in the matter since there is a provisional finality in the matters pertaining to various stages of election, and therefore, having regard to the recognised principles in the matter of public importance that election should be concluded as early as possible according to the time-schedule and all controversial matters as well as disputes arising out of the election including the right to vote or stand as a candidate should be postponed till after the elections are over so as to avoid impediment or hindrance in the election process does not arise. " ( 30 ) IT is true that as far as the merits of the decision are concerned, the decision of the election officer at each stage of the election process is provisionally final, that is to say, it is final until it is upset by the Election Tribunal after the election is over. However, as far as the finality of the time-schedule of each stage of the election programme is concerned, there is nothing provisional about it. It is absolutely final. Let me explain this principle. Suppose 1/01/1996 is the date fixed for filing nomination papers of the candidates. However, as far as the finality of the time-schedule of each stage of the election programme is concerned, there is nothing provisional about it. It is absolutely final. Let me explain this principle. Suppose 1/01/1996 is the date fixed for filing nomination papers of the candidates. The scrutiny of the nomination forms is to be made on 3/01/1996 and 5/01/1996 is the date for withdrawing the candidature. However, a prospective candidate who could not file his nomination papers within the stipulated time on the 1/01/1996 approaches the officer on reopening of the office on 2/01/1996, and makes a request for accepting his nomination as he could not file the nomination papers within time on account of certain circumstances beyond his control. Can the election officer accept the nomination form on the ground that in any case otherwise also the scrutiny is to take place on 3/01/1996 and that the list of candidates is to be finalised on 5/01/1996 ? Neither the election officer nor the Election Tribunal can entertain such a request of the prospective candidate. Indeed, if the election officer were to accept such nomination papers beyond time and include his name in the final list of candidates published on 5-1-1996, this Court would exercise its powers under Art. 226 and would immediately intervene notwithstanding the availability of remedy before Election Tribunal after the election is over and notwithstanding the fact that the direction of the Court would amount to alteration of the final list of candidates prepared on 5-1-1996. ( 31 ) IN short, the principle is clear that the final finality of the time-schedule of each stage of election programme is so important that the Courts have always enforced the said principle rigorously and it is in recognition of this principle that while the Courts have consistently refused to arrest the election programme at any stage, at the same time, whenever this Court has intervened under Art. 226 on the ground that the decision of the election officer is found to be ex facie illegal or without jurisdiction, the Court has always taken care to see that the relief is granted without arresting the election process and well in time. In this connection reference may be made to the following principle laid down in case of Lajuben Jerambhai bhil v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ors. In this connection reference may be made to the following principle laid down in case of Lajuben Jerambhai bhil v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ors. , reported in 1993 (1) GCD 433 in paragraph 4 which is as under :"4. It is true that once the election process has started, it should be allowed to be completed without any interference of the Court and ordinarily, the remedy is by way of election petition challenging the election. However, the question of rejection of nomination papers is such a question that if it can be resolved in proper time without disturbing the election process, the Court should try to see that it is resolved so that on that question, the entire election not only for one seat but for all the seats of that ward are not put into jeopardy and do not get set aside. However, if it is not possible to redress this grievance in time, the Court should refrain from interfering with the election process. "in the aforesaid judgment reference is also made to other decisions of the division Benches of this Court taking a view that it would be open to the High court to resolve the question prior to election without requiring the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy before the Election Tribunal after the election. ( 32 ) EVEN if the election officer might have been hard-pressed for time and he might have received large number of objections and he might have been busy with the work regarding elections to other societies, but he had no authority to make any deviation from the time-schedule prescribed for the Election Programme as already discussed above. It is for the authority fixing the election programme or the rule-making authority to consider this aspect for elections to be held in other market societies hereafter. ( 33 ) IN Special Civil Application Nos. 10347 to 10442 of 1994 decided on 2/09/1994 when this Court found that the order of the election officer deleting the names of the petitioners from the list of voters was ultra vires or a nullity as being ex facie illegal, the Court directed the election officer to include the names of the petitioners in the list of voters before the elections and did not dismiss the petition on the ground that the petitioner should ventilate such grievance only before the Election Tribunal. In the aforesaid case, the learned single Judge of this Court considered the various authorities including the decision of the Division Benches in the case of patan F. and S. S. M. Ltd. v. Pali Shakhbhaji S. M. Ltd. , 1986 GLH 430 and in the case of Mehsana District Co-op. S. and P. Union v. State, 1988 (2) GLR 1060 , lajuben Jerambhai Bhil v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, 1993 (1) GCD 433 and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat University v. N. U. Rajguru, reported in JT 1987 SC 307 : 1988 (1) GLR 308 (SC) and after reviewing the aforesaid decisions the learned single Judge interfered with the decision of the Collector deleting the names of the petitioners from the Voters List. ( 34 ) IT is also necessary to refer to the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Desai Dharamsinhbhai Taljabhai and Ors. v. Babulal jethalal Patel and Ors. , AIR 1990 Guj. 161 on which strong reliance has been placed by the petitioners. In that case the facts were as under :"the date for publication of the preliminary lists of voters was fixed as 10-9-1985. The last date for submitting the applications/objections for additions and alterations in the preliminary lists was fixed as 24-9-1985. He fixed 27-9-1985 as the date for republication of the preliminary lists of voters prepared after considering the objections and suggestions. 11-10-1985 was the date fixed for submitting objections against the republished preliminary lists of voters. The date of publication of the final lists of voters was fixed as 16-10-1985. . . . . . . The election was held on 30-11-1985 and the result was declared on 1-12-1985. In the meantime, between 10-10-1985 and 15-10-1985, eight co-operative societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area had submitted their objections to the list of voters for that constituency as published on 27-9-1985 and called upon the authorised officer to substitute the names of those who were elected as members of the Managing Committee and whose names are shown in the voters lists. The authorised officer refused to entertain those objections on the ground that the stage fixed for entering or not entering name of any person in the voters list was already over and that publication of the voters list as prepared after considering the amendments, suggestions and objections was made on 27-9-1985. The aforesaid decision of the authorised officer (Election Officer) was challenged under Rule 28 of the A. P. M. C. Rules. The Election Tribunal (Director) set aside the election of the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 6. In the Special Civil Application filed before this Court for challenging the order of the Election Tribunal, the decision of the authorised officer rejecting the objections filed beyond 24-9-1985 was upheld. The learned single Judge interpreted the provisions of unamended Rule 8 as under : "10. In my opinion, what sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 requires is that the authorised officer has to publish the preliminary lists of voters and fix a date for inviting objections. After receiving applications for amendment or objections, as they are often described, he has to republish the said lists alongwith with the proposed amendments, alterations or deletions and invite objections from the persons likely to be adversely affected by the said proposed amendments, alterations or deletions. Inviting objections is really in the nature of a hearing to be given to the persons who are likely to be affected thereby. This being the requirement of principles of natural justice, it has been read in sub-rule (1) of R. 8 and keeping that object in mind, it will have to be held that after the second publication of the preliminary lists of voters (provisional list) what is required to be done by the authorised officer is to hear persons likely to be affected by the proposed amendments, alterations or deletion. He cannot receive or entertain fresh applications for new additions, alterations or deletions, or fresh objection in that behalf. The authorised officer was, therefore, fully justified in this case in not entertaining the fresh objections raised by the aforesaid eight co-operative societies for the first time between 10-10-1985 and 11-10-1985 (sic 15-10-1985 ). "the ratio of above judgment rendered after the election cannot be ignored merely because the present petitions are filed prior to the election. I do not see any conflict between the aforesaid judgment and the Division Bench judgment. "the ratio of above judgment rendered after the election cannot be ignored merely because the present petitions are filed prior to the election. I do not see any conflict between the aforesaid judgment and the Division Bench judgment. In fact division Bench judgment dealt only with the controversy regarding alternative remedy. The learned single Judge thereafter interpreted Rules 7 and 8 in the above judgment delivered after the election. Hence, the said declaration of law is binding on this Court as well as on the election authorities subject to amendment of Rule 8. In the case of Desai Dharamsinhbhai (supra) this Court held that once the preliminary list is published and objections are invited for exclusion from or inclusion in the said list, thereafter on publication of the provisional list (i. e. revised preliminary list), the election officer can consider only those objections which are received from the persons likely to be adversely affected by amendments, alterations or deletions proposed at the time of the publication of the provisional list. It is, therefore, clear that even prior to the amendment of Rule 8, under the old Rule 8 the election officer had no authority to receive or entertain fresh applications for new additions, alterations or deletions or fresh objections in that behalf. ( 35 ) ONCE the provisions of Rule 8 were so interpreted by this Court in the aforesaid judgment delivered on 11-4-1989, the petitioners case is all the more strengthened by the amendment with effect from 17-6-1989. ( 35 ) ONCE the provisions of Rule 8 were so interpreted by this Court in the aforesaid judgment delivered on 11-4-1989, the petitioners case is all the more strengthened by the amendment with effect from 17-6-1989. As per the said amendment, there is a clear provision that after receiving applications for amendment of the preliminary list a revised draft list (i. e. provisional list) is required to be published alongwith a notice that any person who wishes to raise any objection against any new name entered in the said list is required to lodge his objections within seven days from the publication of revised draft list and the election officer is required to consider such objection and thereafter publish the final list of voters and hence there is no doubt that Rule 8 after amendment does not contemplate receiving any objections other than the objections against any new name entered in the provisional list, i. e. , revised draft list after the date of the publication of provisional list nor does it contemplate election officer considering the objections which were received before expiry of the time-limit for lodging objections against the preliminary list but which are allegedly not decided till the time of publication of the provisional list. In view of the aforesaid discussion the only conclusion possible is that the election officer had acted without authority and ex facie illegally in considering after 19-1-1996 the objections against the names of the petitioners in the first group of petitions although their names were already included in the preliminary list and in provisional list - their names were not new names entered in the provisional list, i. e. , revised draft list. The impugned decision of the respondent officer to delete the names of the petitioners from the final list of the voters in the first group of petitions must, therefore, be held to be ex facie without jurisdiction and patently illegal and a nullity. ( 36 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents, however, urged that in any view of the matter, the judgment of the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application no. 3299 of 1994 and group matters delivered on 5-4-1994 dealt with a case, where the list of voters was published after 17-6-1989 and therefore, even amendment to the provisions of Rule 8 cannot and does not remove the obstacle in the way of the petitioners. 3299 of 1994 and group matters delivered on 5-4-1994 dealt with a case, where the list of voters was published after 17-6-1989 and therefore, even amendment to the provisions of Rule 8 cannot and does not remove the obstacle in the way of the petitioners. It is true that the said decision was in cases which dealt with the period after amendment of Rule 8 of the Rules. However, the petitioner in that group did not rely on the amendment to the provisions of Rule 8 but relied upon (i) unamended Rule 8, (ii) the judgment reported in AIR 1990 Guj. 161 : 1989 (2) glr 1195 and (iii) the statement which was made by the Government Pleader on 7-3-1994 before a Division Bench of this Court, which read as under :"learned Counsel Mr. N. D. Nanavati, Government Pleader, appears for respondents nos. 1, 2 and 5 and states that objections submitted by the petitioner against the preliminary voters list will be considered and decided before the final publication of the voters list. He further states that final voters list will be published on 11/03/1994. Therefore, the effect of the statement is that the objections submitted by the petitioner will be considered and decided by the authorised officer, i. e. , respondent No. 2 latest by 11/03/1994. In the facts of the case, it is directed that the decision that may be taken by respondent No. 2 with regard to the objections against preliminary voters list shall be communicated to the petitioner immediately preferably on the same day. The petition is ordered to be placed on Board on 15/03/1994. "the petitioners had not pointed out in those petitions that after the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Mehsana District Co-operative Sales and purchase Union Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (supra) and after the judgment of the learned single Judge in the case of Desai Dharamsinhbhai (supra), the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules were amended and sub-rules (1a) and (2) of Rule 8 left no room for any doubt that the election officer had no authority or jurisdiction to entertain any objection against the name of a person already included in the preliminary as well as provisional list. I have gone through the memos of Special civil Application Nos. I have gone through the memos of Special civil Application Nos. 3299, 3484 and 3755 of 1994 in the said group which were made available by the Registry. Far from even referring to amended Rules 8 (1a) and (2) in those petitions, in the memo of Special Civil Application No. 3484 of 1994 (one of the group matters decided by the above judgment) the provisions of unamended Rule 8 were quoted. It appears that this unfortunate situation seems to have arisen because after making amendments to statutory rules the Government does not come out with publications with amendments carried out from time to time. Such statutory Rules are, therefore, read from the series of Gujarat Local Acts. It, therefore, appears that the learned advocates in the said group as well as the learned Single Judge had available to them Vol. 1 of the Second Edition of Gujarat Local Acts (containing A. P. M. C. Act and Rules) published in 1983. Vol. 2 of the Third Edition of Gujarat Local acts (containing A. P. M. C. Rules) with statute law as on 1-1-1994 appears to have become available after the date of the judgment in the above group of petitions. I am, therefore, of the view that the said judgment of the learned single Judge was, with respect, per incuriam as the learned single Judge did not have the benefit of considering the amendment to Rule 8 of the A. P. M. C. Rules made in 1989. ( 37 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents urged that if the petitions in this group are allowed at this stage, it would amount to the Court setting the clock back because under Rule 8 (2) of the Rules, the final list of voters has to be prepared at least thirty days before the date fixed for the nomination of candidates for the election. The contention urged, therefore, is that since 10/03/1996 was the date fixed for nomination of the candidates for election, any direction to include the names of the petitioners in the final list of voters may put the clock back. Mr. Patel as well as Mr. Jhaveri stated at the outset that none of the petitioners are interested in contesting the election as that stage is over and that they are all interested only in exercising their right to vote. Mr. Patel as well as Mr. Jhaveri stated at the outset that none of the petitioners are interested in contesting the election as that stage is over and that they are all interested only in exercising their right to vote. Under the circumstances, the direction of the Court to election officer to permit the petitioners in the first group of petitions to vote at the election scheduled to be held on 22/03/1969 will not amount to setting the clock back, as none of the stages of the election programme is to be arrested nor the time-schedule is to be upset. ( 38 ) IN the result, the following order is passed : (1) Special Civil Application Nos. 1229, 1230, 1231, 1242 and 1243 of 1996 are allowed. The impugned decisions of the respondent officer deleting the names of the petitioners from the respective final lists of voters dated 7-2- 1996 are quashed and set aside. The authorised officer (election officer) shall permit the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos. 1229, 1230 and 1231 of 1996 to vote at the ensuing elections of the A. P. M. C. , Visnagar, from the constituency under Sec. 11 (1) (i) of the Act and the petitioners of Special civil Application Nos. 1242 and 1243 of 1996 to vote at the said elections from the constituency of traders under Sec. 11 (1) (ii) of the Act. Rule is accordingly made absolute in these five petitions with no order as to costs. (2) Special Civil Application Nos. 1227, 1228, 1232, 1252 and 1253 of 1996 are not entertained on the ground that the petitioners have the alternative remedy available to them under Rule 28 of the A. P. M. C. Rules, 1965. Subject to the observations made in paras 17-A and 18-A of this judgment, Rule in these five petitions is accordingly discharged in these petitions with no order as to costs. ORAL ORDER after pronouncement of the judgment, Mr. M. R. Anand, Senior Government pleader with Mr. Kamal M. Mehta, A. G. P. and Mr. P. M. Thakkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N. R. Pahwa, Advocate for the respondents requested the Court that the operation of this judgment may be stayed in order to enable the respondents to prefer appeal for appropriate orders. M. R. Anand, Senior Government pleader with Mr. Kamal M. Mehta, A. G. P. and Mr. P. M. Thakkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N. R. Pahwa, Advocate for the respondents requested the Court that the operation of this judgment may be stayed in order to enable the respondents to prefer appeal for appropriate orders. Since the elections are already scheduled to be held on 22-3-1996, this is not a fit case for granting the above request. The office is directed to make copy of the judgment available to the respondents latest by 19-3-1996. The respondents would, therefore, be in a position to approach the appellate forum prior to 22-3- 1996. In view of the above, the request made on behalf of respondents is rejected. The office to issue Writ in Special Civil Application Nos. 1229, 1230, 1231, 1242 and 1243 of 1996, which have been allowed latest by evening of 19-3-1996. Direct service of the Writ is permitted. .