Judgment Mohit S. Shah, J.—In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges deletion of the names of members of its Managing Committee from the voters’ list for the Constituency of Co-operative Marketing Societies for elections to APMC, Savarkundla. 2. The elections to APMC, Savarkundla were declared on 02.01.2009 and the detailed programme was declared on 06.01.2009. The Authorised Officer instructed the APMC on 6.01.2009 to send list of voters under Rule 7. Accordingly, APMC sent the list of voters for the three Constituencies on 10.01.2009 and the preliminary list of voters was published on 13.01.2009. Objections were invited against the provisional list of voters by 25.01.2009. It appears that Dilipbhai Joshi and Madhubhai Laheri, Respondent Nos. 7 and 6 herein lodged their objections on 22.01.2009 and 23.01.2009 respectively against inclusion of the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society. After considering the said objections, the Authorised Officer - Respondent No. 4 herein passed the impugned order dated 29.01.2009 accepting the objections and deleting the names of members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society from the list of Constituency of Co-operative Marketing Societies. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. VC Vaghela, learned Advocate for the petitioner has raised the following contentions :— (i) Neither Respondent No. 6 nor Respondent No. 7 claims to be a member of the Managing Committee of any Co-operative Marketing Society within the area of APMC, Savarkundla and therefore, neither of them had locus standi to lodge objections against inclusion of the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society in the list of voters for the Constituency of Co-operative Marketing Societies for elections to APMC, Savarkundla. (ii) The petitioner society was granted a licence for Co-operative Marketing Society for the year 2008-09 and therefore, the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society are eligible for participating in the elections to APMC, Savarkundla. (iii) The petitioner society fulfills all the eligibility criteria for inclusion of the names of members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society in the voters’ list for Co-operative Marketing Societies. The petitioner is registered as a Co-operative Marketing Society under the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The petitioner is holding the licence granted by the APMC, Savarkundla and the petitioner carries on the business of buying/selling and of possessing the agriculture produce. The petitioner is registered as a Co-operative Marketing Society under the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The petitioner is holding the licence granted by the APMC, Savarkundla and the petitioner carries on the business of buying/selling and of possessing the agriculture produce. (iv) The Authorised Officer erred in holding that the petitioner society is not carrying on the business but is only a society on paper for the purpose of participating in the elections to APMC, Savarkundla. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Respondent No. 4 - Authorised Officer and Co-operative Officer who passed the impugned order dated 29.01.2009 has opposed the petition and submitted that this Court would not interfere with the decision of the Authorised Officer after the publication of the voters’ list. It is also submitted that the petition raises disputed questions of fact. Mr. Mehta has also relied on the affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No. 4. 5. Mr. BS Patel, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 5 - Kalubhai Virani, Member of Legislative Assembly, Savarkundla and Chairman of APMC, Savarkundla has also opposed the petition and relied on the affidavit in reply filed by the Secretary of APMC, Savarkundla and supported the impugned order dated 29.1.2009. It is stated that the petitioner did not obtain licence in the accounting years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the petitioner had submitted an application on 26.3.2008 along with the licence fee for the year 2008-09. 6. It appears that Respondent No. 5 himself has not filed any affidavit denying the allegations of mala fide made in the memo of petition. It also appears that Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 who had lodged the objections against inclusion of the names of members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society in the voters’ list refused to accept the service of notice on the petition as per the affidavit. 7. Having heard the learned Advocate for the parties, we find some substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that nothing is pointed out to show as to how Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were concerned with the voters’ list for the Constituency of Co-operative Marketing Society. 7. Having heard the learned Advocate for the parties, we find some substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that nothing is pointed out to show as to how Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were concerned with the voters’ list for the Constituency of Co-operative Marketing Society. It is not the case of the respondents that either Respondent No. 6 or Respondent No. 7 is a member of Managing Committee of any Co-operative Marketing Society within the market area of APMC, Savarkundla. In fact in the provisional list of voters for the said Constituency, the names of members of the Managing Committee of only three Societies including the petitioner society were included and Respondent No. 6 or Respondent No. 7 is not a member of the Managing Committee of either of the other two Co-operative Marketing Societies. 8. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that Rule 8 of the Gujarat APMC Rules, 1965 provides that upon publication of the provisional voters’ list, any person may apply to the Authorised Officer for an amendment of the list of voters and therefore, it is open to the Authorised Officer to entertain objections from any person. 9. Rule 8(1), thus, provides that the objections could be lodged by — (i) Any person whose name is not entered in the list of voters and who claims that his name should be entered therein or (ii) Any person who thinks that his name has been wrongly entered therein or has not been correctly entered, (iii) Any person who thinks that the name of some other person has been wrongly entered therein or has not been correctly entered. 10. The question for our consideration is whether the third category of objectors would include any person who does not claim any right to participate in the election process at all and therefore, a rank stranger has also locus standi to lodge his objections against the provisional voters’ list. 11. Having examined the scheme of the Rules pertaining to election in Part III of the Gujarat APMC Rules, 1965, we do not find that a rank outsider or an absolute stranger to the APMC would have locus standi to lodge objections against the provisional list of voters. Since Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are not shown to have made any claim to participate in the election process, Respondent Nos. Since Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are not shown to have made any claim to participate in the election process, Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 cannot be said to be having any locus standi to lodge objections against the provisional voters’ list. 12. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the Authorised Officer cannot be prevented from taking into consideration any information brought to his notice which has a bearing on the question of eligibility or otherwise of any person to be included in the voters’ list and that such information cannot be shut out only on the ground that the person lodging objections did not have the locus standi to file the objections. 13. We do not propose to express any final opinion on the above submission but it does appear to us in the facts and circumstances of the case that the Authorised Officer - Respondent No. 4 herein erred in deleting the names of the members of Managing Committee of the petitioner society on the ground that the petitioner society was not carrying on any business. The material produced by the petitioner society does indicate that some business activity was being carried on by the petitioner society in the relevant years. The Authorised Officer has, however, not accepted the same material on the ground that the petitioner society had not paid any market cess. The contention of the petitioner society is that market cess was required to be paid by the purchaser and not by the seller, that the petitioner society is a Co-operative Marketing Society for the benefit of the farmers doing agriculture produce such as ground nut in the market area of the APMC and that it is not for the Authorised Officer to decide such question about liability to pay market cess. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are also not required to decide the question about the liability to pay the market cess. If at all the Authorised Officer had doubt about the genuineness or otherwise of the business transactions referred to in the balance sheet of the petitioner society, the Authorised Officer could have given the Society an opportunity to satisfy the Authorised Officer on this issue, but merely on the ground that the market cess was not paid by the petitioner society, the Authorised Officer could not have deleted them from the voters’ list. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the impugned order dated 29.1.2009 deleting the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society from the list of voters for Co-operative Marketing Societies for elections to APMC, Savarkundla is illegal and therefore, the same is quashed and set aside. The names of members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society shall accordingly be included in the list of voters for the elections to APMC, Savarkundla. 16. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.