M. S. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) RULE. At the suggestion of the Court, Ms Nandini Joshi, learned AGP waives service of Rule in Special Civil Application Nos. 2014 to 2019 of 2005 and Ms Archana Raval, learned AGP waives service of Rule in Special Civil Application Nos. 2020 to 2023 and 1994 of 2005 for respondent No. 1. Mr Harin Raval with Mr Dilip Rana waives service of rule for the other respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the urgency to ensure that there is no disturbance with the election program, the petitions are taken up for final disposal today. ( 2 ) WHAT is challenged in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution is similar orders dated 9. 2. 2005 passed by respondent No. 1 for deleting the names of the members of the managing committees of petitioner No. 1-Cooperative Societies from the preliminary list of voters at the stage of declaration of the provisional list of voters in the matter of elections to the constituencies of agriculturists for APMC Khambhat. ( 3 ) SECTION 11 (1) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 provides for constitution of Agricultural Produce Market Committee as under:- every market committee shall consist of the following members, namely:- (I) eight agriculturists who shall be elected by members of managing committees of cooperative societies (other than cooperative marketing societies) dispensing agricultural credit in the market area; (II) to (v ). . . . . . . . . . . Petitioner No. 1 -Cooperative Society in each of these petitions had forwarded the names of all the members of its managing committee. Their names were included in the preliminary list of voters published by the Election Officer on 21. 1. 2005. On account of the objections lodged by the contesting respondents herein, the Election Officer passed the impugned orders dated 9. 2. 2005 deleting the names of all the members of the managing committees of the cooperative societies petitioner No. 1 in this group of petitions, on the ground that the number of members of the managing committee in each petitioner-Society was in excess of the number of members of the managing committee as specified in the bye-laws of the respective Societies. ( 4 ) MR BS Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it was on the basis of the circular dated 9. ( 4 ) MR BS Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it was on the basis of the circular dated 9. 5. 2001 (Annexure-D) issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gujarat State that each of the petitioner-Societies had 11 members in their managing committees. As per the said circular, each cooperative Society was required to provide for minimum 11 and maximum 15 members of the managing committee. It is, therefore, submitted that there was nothing wrong in the petitioner-Societies forwarding the names of all the members of the managing committees of the petitioner-Societies. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Ms Nandini Joshi and Ms Archana Raval, learned AGPs appearing for respondent No. 1 have submitted that the said circular merely requires the cooperative societies to amend their bye-laws to provide for minimum 11 to maximum 15 members of the managing committee, but the circular does not dispense with the statutory requirement amending the bye-laws for that purpose and that the petitioner-Societies had not produced any material to show that such amendment was made to the bye-laws with the sanction of the competent authority and, therefore, respondent No. 1 was justified in passing the impugned orders. It is also submitted that the election process may not be disturbed at this stage. ( 6 ) MR Harin Raval with Mr Dilip B Rana has also supported the aforesaid stand of the learned AGPs. ( 7 ) IN rejoinder, Mr BS Patel for the petitioners has submitted that in any view of the matter when the petitioner-Societies came to learn about the aforesaid objection, the respective Societies had addressed letters to respondent No. 1 giving the names of members of the managing committees which may be deleted from the list of voters and not to delete the names of all the members of the managing committees. In other words, the petitioner-Societies had agreed to confine the voters of the respective Societies to the number of members as permitted by the bye-laws in force. Reliance is placed on such letters addressed by the petitioner-Societies through their Chairman/secretary to the Election Officer - respondent No. 1 herein. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, do not admit that such letters were received by the Election Officer before the impugned orders were passed on 9. 2. 2005. Reliance is placed on such letters addressed by the petitioner-Societies through their Chairman/secretary to the Election Officer - respondent No. 1 herein. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, do not admit that such letters were received by the Election Officer before the impugned orders were passed on 9. 2. 2005. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that when the justification given by the Election Officer for deleting the names of members of the managing committees of the respective Societies is that the number of members of the managing committees was in excess of the number of members permissible under the bye-laws of the respective Societies, the Election Officer can at the most restrict the number of voters from each cooperative Society to the number of members of the managing committee permissible under the bye-laws of the respective Societies which are in force, but the Election Officer cannot delete the names of all the members. It is true that if the Cooperative Societies were not to indicate as to which members should be included/retained in the list of voters and which members should not be retained/included, the Election Officer would find it difficult to take a particular decision, but in the facts of the present cases all the petitioner-Societies have conveyed to the Election Officer as to which members names may be deleted from the list of voters. Even if there is any dispute as to whether the Election Officer has received such communications from the petitioner-Societies before the impugned orders were passed on 9. 2. 2005, when the election program permits lodging of objections against the provisional list of voters by 16. 2. 2005, that is tomorrow, there is enough time for all the petitioner-Societies to address fresh communications, without prejudice to their contention that such communications were sent earlier. However, this shall be done by tomorrow so as to abide by the time limit specified in the election program and the Election Officer shall accept such communications and shall not exclude the members of the managing committees of the petitioner-Societies upto the number of members permissible under the bye-laws of the respective petitioner-Societies, merely on the ground that the actual number of members of the managing committee of the respective Societies was in excess of the number permissible under the relevant bye-laws. ( 9 ) MR Harin Raval for the contesting respondents states that the contesting respondents had raised objections against the petitioners on other grounds as well and that the contesting respondents are not giving up those grounds. ( 10 ) WE do not propose to say anything more in the matter except directing the Election Officer to take such communications of the petitioner-Societies as aforesaid while publishing the final voters list in accordance with law. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the question - whether the contesting respondents are entitled to raise other objections at the hearing of the objections against the provisional list of voters. It is clarified that the aforesaid directions are given only in view of the impugned orders dated 9. 2. 2005 and the respondent-Election Officer is not precluded from considering any other objection permissible under the law. ( 11 ) THE petitions are accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted on 16. 2. 2005. .