D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Dhaval Barot, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1,2 and 3, and Ms. Harsha Devani, learned AGP, representing respondent No. 4, waive service of Rule. With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. K. S. Jhaveri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Dhaval Barot, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1,2 and 3, and Ms. Harsha devani, learned AGP, representing respondent No. 4. ( 3 ) INSTANT petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 25. 1. 2002, passed by the Gujarat State cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Election Petition no. 1 of 2001, under section 145-U. of the Gujarat co-operative Societies Act, 1961, (hereinafter called `the Act), between Lilabhai Ranabhai Desai and others and the Election Officer and Assistant Collector, Deesa and others, whereby the election of the petitioners to the managing Committee of the Deesa Taluka Kharid Vechan sangh Limited, a Taluka Union, registered under the Act, has been set aside,in exercise of the powers under Rule 82 of the Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies elections to Committees Rules, 1982, (hereinafter called `the Rules ). ( 4 ) SUB-RULE (1) of Rule 75 of the Rules provides that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented by any candidate or any voter within two months from the date of declaration of the result of the election. Thus, except the candidate or any voter, no one has a right to maintain an election petition, calling in question any election governed by the Act and the Rules. ( 5 ) MR. BAROT,learned counsel representing the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein, and the election-petitioners before the Tribunal, very fairly concedes that respondents Nos. 1,2 and 3 were neither candidates at the election in question nor were voters, as visualised by the Rules. ( 6 ) IN view of the fact that respondents Nos. 1,2 and 3, who were election-petitioners before the Tribunal, were neither candidates nor voters, they had no right to maintain the election petition wherein the impugned order was passed. The election petition being not maintainable, at the behest of said respondents the impugned order passed therein is illegal and liable to be quashed. 1,2 and 3, who were election-petitioners before the Tribunal, were neither candidates nor voters, they had no right to maintain the election petition wherein the impugned order was passed. The election petition being not maintainable, at the behest of said respondents the impugned order passed therein is illegal and liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 25. 1. 2002, passed by the Tribunal, a copy whereof is Annexure `a to the petition, is quashed. There is no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute. No order on the Civil Application. .