MOHIT S. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) MR Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioners seeks leave, under instructions of petitioner No. 1, to permit petitioner No. 1 to withdraw from the petition. Leave as prayed for is granted. Accordingly, the petition stands confined to petitioner No. 2 only. ( 2 ) RULE. Mrs VS Pathak, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5, Mr Prakash K Jani for respondent No. 4 APMC and Mr Dipen Desai for respondent No. 6 waive service of rule. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. ( 3 ) BY order dated 13. 8. 2009, we had granted the following interim relief :- "in view of the recent order dated 11. 8. 2009 of the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance allowing Appeal Nos. 19 and 20 of 2009 directing APMC, Godhra to grant trader's licence to the petitioners herein i. e. Godhra Taluka Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. and Panchmahals Jilla Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. , the Election Officer for elections to APMC, Godhra shall include the petitioners' names in the provisional voters' list to be published on 16. 8. 2009. This shall be done without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to any further orders which may be passed in the present petition. " ( 4 ) AT the hearing of this petition today, Mr PK Jani, learned advocate for respondent No. 4 and Mr Dipen Desai for the newly added party i. e. applicant of Civil Application No. 8910 of 2009 have opposed the grant of interim relief on the ground that it is only recently by order dated 11. 8. 2009 of the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance that the petitioner Panchmahals Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. has been granted the trader's licence but the election program was already declared in the meantime on 24. 7. 2009 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get its name included in the voters' list. In support of the said submission, strong reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari Vs. State of Gujarat, 2007 (3) GLH 57 . 7. 2009 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get its name included in the voters' list. In support of the said submission, strong reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari Vs. State of Gujarat, 2007 (3) GLH 57 . ( 5 ) MR Pandya for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner herein was granted trader's licence for a number of years and as recorded in the order of the Appellate Authority, it is indicated in the petitioner's licence passbook that licence was renewed for the years 2002-03 to 2007-08. The licence was being renewed every year. However, for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the petitioner had applied for licence on 13. 2. 2009 but the application for renewal of the licence was illegally rejected by the APMC on 11. 4. 2009 and therefore, the petitioner had challenged the said decision in appeal before the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance. The Director allowed the said appeal being Appeal No. 19 of 2009 by his order dated 11. 8. 2009 and therefore, the appellant cannot be blamed for not getting renewal of the licence before commencement of the election process when the program was declared on 24. 7. 2009 on which date the petitioner's appeal was pending before the Director for about two months and therefore, the petitioner had to seek urgent orders of this Court for expeditious hearing of the appeal. ( 6 ) MR Pandya further submits that Godhra Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. which had not applied for renewal of licence for four years has already withdrawn from the petition and that the case of the present petitioner stands on a much higher footing as the present petitioner had its licence renewed for the period upto 31. 3. 2008 and thereafter, it had applied for renewal of the licence before expiry of the year 2008-09. 3. 2008 and thereafter, it had applied for renewal of the licence before expiry of the year 2008-09. ( 7 ) IN Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari (supra), we have already held that the relevant date for determining the eligibility for inclusion in the voters' list for elections to the APMC is the date on which the Authorised Officer is to be communicated the names under sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the APMC Rules, 1965, that is to say, before that date a trader who has been granted licence by the APMC to carry on business as a trader in the market area must have commenced the business as a trader. As per the election program, the relevant date was 29. 7. 2009 because that was the date on which the APMC was to send the list of voters to the Authorised Officer. It is true that on that date, the present petitioner did not have a trader's licence. The rationale for directing that the person to be included in the voters' list must have trader's licence as on the relevant date under Rule 7 (1) was explained by this Court in Shrutbandhu H. Popat Vs. State of Gujarat, 2008 (1) GLH 575 decided on 11. 5. 2007 and in Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari (supra) decided on 16. 7. 2007. This Court held that the large scale grant of licences after the declaration of the election program would not only be illegal but also a fraud on the election process. The question whether the same principle would apply to renewal of licences was examined by this Court in Shrutbandhu H. Popat (supra) and in the facts of that case, this Court answered the question in the affirmative for the following main reasons :- (i) At the hearing of Special Civil Application No. 5029 of 2007 on 27. 2. 2007 (filed by some persons whose pending applications for grant/renewal of licences were not being decided), the stand of the APMC was as under:-"mr. 2. 2007 (filed by some persons whose pending applications for grant/renewal of licences were not being decided), the stand of the APMC was as under:-"mr. B. S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the Market Committee, submitted that fresh licence cannot be granted and so far as the case of renewal is concerned, as per his instructions, those petitioners had not applied for renewal of licence prior to the expiry of the licence and not only that more than reasonable time had expired and thereafter, when they realised that the election is ensuing, the applications are made. " the APMC cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. (ii) Section 27 (3) read with Rule 56 clearly indicates that the Market Committee will have to be satisfied that the licence holder applying for renewal has not committed breach of any of the terms and conditions or restrictions imposed by the licences, that the holder of the licence has not been adjudged as an insolvent who has not obtained his discharge and that the holder of the licence is not convicted of any offence under the APMC Act. The APMC or its Licencing Sub-Committee cannot, therefore, issue a licence so as to renew any existing licence without making necessary inquiry for satisfying itself that the application for renewal of licence fulfills the above conditions. The manner in which the so called Scrutiny Report of the applications, including the applications for renewal, was made by a mere gate clerk after a long period and absence of any scrutiny by an authorized and responsible officer of the APMC cannot give premium to the case of the applicants whose applications were taken up for consideration after the date of declaration of the elections to the APMC. ( 8 ) IT is, thus, clear that the contention that renewal of licence would stand on a different footing from the case of issuance of fresh licences was considered on the face of it attractive and reasonable. However, in the facts of that case, this Court did not accept that contention because it was found that the APMC in that case had adopted different stand in another matter and therefore, this Court observed that the APMC cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. However, in the facts of that case, this Court did not accept that contention because it was found that the APMC in that case had adopted different stand in another matter and therefore, this Court observed that the APMC cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. This Court further found that the applications for renewal of licences were not scrutinized by an authorised and responsible officer of the APMC but were scrutinized "by a gate Clerk of the APMC" and that the applications for renewal were taken up for consideration by the APMC after the date of declaration of the elections to the APMC. ( 9 ) IN the facts of the instant case, the application for renewal made by the petitioner on 13. 2. 2009 was taken up for consideration by the APMC on 11. 4. 2009 and that was long prior to the declaration of the election program. However, the APMC rejected the application but by the appellate order, the Director found that the rejection was illegal and the Director directed the APMC to grant the renewal of the trader's licence for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10. It is, thus, clear that the facts in the instant case are quite different from the facts which were considered by this Court in Shrutbandhu H. Popat's case (supra ). ( 10 ) IN view of the above discussion, we allow the petition in terms of the order dated 13. 8. 2009 qua the petitioner Panchmahal Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. It is clarified that no interim relief is granted in favour of Godhra Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. which is permitted to withdraw from the petition and the interim relief granted on 13. 8. 2009 in respect of Godhra Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. stands vacated. ( 11 ) MR Pandya for the petitioner states that the interim order dated 13. 8. 2009 was permitted to be directly served on the respondents and although the petitioner had paid the process fee on 13. 8. 2009, the direct service was made available only on 17. 8. 2009 and therefore, the petitioner served the same on the respondents on 18. 8. 2009. Accordingly, in compliance with the interim order dated 13. 8. 2009, the Authorised Officer has issued a corrigendum to the voters' list on 18. 8. 8. 2009, the direct service was made available only on 17. 8. 2009 and therefore, the petitioner served the same on the respondents on 18. 8. 2009. Accordingly, in compliance with the interim order dated 13. 8. 2009, the Authorised Officer has issued a corrigendum to the voters' list on 18. 8. 2009 inviting objections to the inclusion of the names of the members of the managing Committee of Godhra Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. and Panchmahal Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. In view of the fact that Godhra Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. has withdrawn from the petition and the interim relief granted on 13. 8. 2009 has been vacated, there will be no question of including the names of Managing Committee of Godhra Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. on the voters' list. The inclusion of the members of the Managing Committee of the Panchmahal Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. will be in the provisional list and since the objections are already invited, it will be open to the Authorised Officer to decide objections, if any, in accordance with law. ( 12 ) THE petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.