JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Heard Shri Hon, learned Counsel for the petitioner; and Shri Ghatge, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Shri R.N. Dhorde appears for the applicants in Civil Application No. 6781 of 1998, which is filed for intervening in the matter. The said civil application for intervention is allowed and Shri Dhorde is also heard. 2. The petition challenges the programme declared by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner respondent No. 3 for the election to Market Committee, Kopargaon; and mainly challenges the voters list which is finalised by the respondents. 3. The first contention raised is that the statute gives authority to the Collector to prepare a list of voters in consultation with the District Deputy Registrar; but, here, the work of the revision of the voters list and the declaration of the programme is undertaken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who has no authority to do so. 4. Shri Ghatge, on instructions from the Officer present in the Court, makes a statement that the Sub-Divisional Officer is duly authorised; and we find that the Collector is defined under Rule 2(iii) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules") in the following terms : "Collector" includes an officer duly authorised by him for exercising the powers or discharging the functions of the Collector under all or any of the provisions of these rules." 5. Shri Ghatge, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, has also produced on record a copy of the order passed by the then Collector, Ahmednagar, on 30th September, 1988 authorising the Sub-Divisional Officers to exercise all powers of the Collector, inter alia, under the said Rules for the purposes of election to the Market Committees in the District. 6. In view of this, we do not find any substance in the first contention raised by Shri Hon. 7. The second contention raised is that under Rule 36 of the said Rules, the District Deputy Registrar has to prepare the list of voters and if it is to be revised, it has to be revised by the District Deputy Registrar. In view of this, we do not find any substance in the first contention raised by Shri Hon. 7. The second contention raised is that under Rule 36 of the said Rules, the District Deputy Registrar has to prepare the list of voters and if it is to be revised, it has to be revised by the District Deputy Registrar. Rule 36(1), to the extent material, is as under : "The Collector shall call upon the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies to prepare and furnish to him a list of members of the Managing Committees of the Agricultural Credit Societies and the Multipurpose Co-operative Societies and call upon the Block Development Officer to prepare and furnish to him a list of members of the Village Panchayats ... and the market committee to prepare and furnish to him the list of traders and hamals and weighmen licensed by the committee..." It is, therefore, clear that the Collector invites a preliminary list from three different sources, i.e., the District Deputy Registrar, Block Development Officers and the Market Committee. After getting these preliminary lists, the Collector then starts the process of finalisation of the voters list. Therefore, even this contention will have to be rejected. 8. Another submission made by Shri Hon, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the qualifying date should have been at least six months prior to the expiry of the term of the previous committee. In support of this contention, Shri Hon relies on sub-Rule (2) of Rule 36 of the said Rules, which is as under : Every such list shall be revised before each general election at least six months before the date on which the term of the market committee is due to expire : Provided that the Collector may direct the revision of such list also at any other time before any general election is due. Therefore, this sub-rule requires that the voters list will have to be revised, meaning thereby that the persons who qualified and acquired the right to vote since the time of the earlier list have to be included; so also the names of those persons, who have lost their voting rights for variety of reasons, such as death, cancellation of licence, or any other reason, will have to be struck off from the list. This revision is to take place at least six months before the general election is due; but the proviso gives a discretion to the Collector to revise the list even at a subsequent date. It is a matter of common knowledge that the election schedules are often disturbed because of various reasons and if the elections are delayed; and the Collector thinks it fit, then, instead of revising it on the basis of qualifying date prior to six months when the term of the market committee is due to expire, the Collector may choose any other date. Here, in the instant case, the Collator has chosen 30th September, 1998 as a qualifying date, which was perfectly within the powers of the Collector. Therefore, even this submission will have to be rejected. 9. Shri Hon invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the well-known case of (Delhi Bar Council)1, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1612, and contended that the basis of a valid election is always the valid list of voters. We do not find any infirmity in the list of voters in the present case on the grounds, which have been agitated before us. 10. We, therefore, do not find any substance in this writ petition and the same is hereby rejected. Petition rejected.