JUDGMENT : R.M. Doshit, J. With the consent of the learned advocates, the petition is heard and decided today. 2. The petitioner is an agriculturist operating within the market area of the respondent no.4 - Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Siddhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Market Committee"). 3. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the inclusion of the names of the members of the managing committees of the respondent nos.5 to 23 societies in the list of voters of the Market Committee in the constituency of the agriculturists. 4. Under the public notice dated 17th December 2009 issued by the authorised officer, a provisional list of voters in the constituency of the agriculturists of the Market Committee has been published for the general election of 2010. In the said list of voters, the members of the managing committees of the respondent nos.5 to 23, Gopalak Cooperative Societies, have been included. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner raised objection before the authorised officer. The authorised officer, under his order dated 17th December 2009, rejected the objection raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is an agriculturist operating within the market area of the Market Committee. He has submitted that Section 11 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") provides for constitution of the market committees. Clause (i) of sub-section (1) thereof, since its amendment by Gujarat Act No.21 of 2006, provides, "eight agriculturists who shall be elected by members of managing committees of co-operative societies (other than co-operative marketing societies and milk produce co-operative societies) dispensing agricultural credit in the market area." The petitioner, being an agriculturist, is eligible for contesting election as a member in the constituency of the agriculturists. 6. Mr. Joshi has submitted that every milk producing society is specifically excluded from the electorate for election of eight agriculturists. The definition of the words 'agricultural produce' in Section 2(i) of the Act and the Schedule to the Act have been amended to exclude 'animal husbandry' and 'animal husbandry products' from the definition of the words 'agricultural produce'. In the submission of Mr. Joshi, since the aforesaid amendment by Gujarat Act No.21 of 2006 neither the 'animal husbandry' nor the 'animal husbandry products' are governed by the Act. In the submission of Mr. Joshi, since the aforesaid amendment by Gujarat Act No.21 of 2006 neither the 'animal husbandry' nor the 'animal husbandry products' are governed by the Act. The respondent nos.5 to 23, being the Gopalak societies, are necessarily engaged in 'animal husbandry' and 'animal husbandry products'. Such societies, having been expressly excluded from the constituency of the agriculturists, members of the managing committees of such societies cannot have a right to vote for election of the eight agriculturists. He has submitted that what weighed with the authorised officer is that, along with the 'animal husbandry' and the 'animal husbandry products', the said societies also advance agricultural credit to their members. Hence, the said societies do answer the eligibility criteria set out in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act. 7. Mr. Joshi has relied upon various circulars issued by the State Government in respect of the societies engaged in animal husbandry. He has submitted that the various instructions issued from time to time have culminated into the aforesaid amendment by Gujarat Act No.21 of 2006. The legislative intention to exclude such societies from the purview of the Act is clear and unambiguous. The respondent nos.5 to 23 - societies engaged in the animal husbandry and the animal husbandry products cannot be inducted in the electorate of the agriculturists under the guise that they do advance agricultural credit to their members. 8. The petition is contested by the learned Government Pleader Mr. Jani. He has raised a preliminary objection that what the petitioner challenges in the present petition is the preliminary list of voters published on 17th December 2009. Since then, a final list has been published on 29th December 2009. In absence of challenge to the final list published on 29th December 2009, the challenge to the list dated 17th December 2009 is not maintainable. 9. He has next submitted that the objections raised by the petitioner has been considered by the authorised officer. The authorised officer has, by his order dated 17th December 2009, rejected the said objections and has decided to maintain the names of the respondent nos.5 to 23 societies on the voters' list. In absence of challenge to the said order, the relief prayed for in the present petition cannot be granted. The authorised officer has, by his order dated 17th December 2009, rejected the said objections and has decided to maintain the names of the respondent nos.5 to 23 societies on the voters' list. In absence of challenge to the said order, the relief prayed for in the present petition cannot be granted. He has also submitted that though notice was issued to the petitioner, he did not remain present before the authorised officer. Therefore also, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. In the submission of Mr.Jani, the petition involves disputed questions of facts. On the question whether or not the respondent nos.5 to 23 societies are the agricultural credit cooperative societies, he has relied upon the byelaws of several Gopalak societies. In the submission of Mr. Jani; true, the respondent nos.5 to 23 are the Gopalak societies engaged in animal husbandry but they also advance agricultural credit to their members. The said societies also dispense agricultural credit to its members as referred to in Section 11(1)(i) of the Act. The said societies have rightly been included in the voters' list for the constituency of the agriculturists. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Vaghela has appeared for some of the respondents nos.5 to 23 societies. He has adopted the arguments made by Mr. Jani. He too has relied upon the bye-laws of the said societies to establish that the said societies do dispense agricultural credit to their members. He has also submitted that not only under the bye-laws the said societies are permitted to advance agricultural credit but they have also produced sufficient materials before the authorised officer to establish that the said societies do advance agricultural credit to their members. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Kavina has intervened. He has supported the respondents. He has submitted that the 'milk produce cooperative societies' referred to in Section 11(1)(i) of the Act is not a 'verb' but is a 'noun' and must be given meaning as such. He has submitted that it is only milk produce societies which are registered as such are excluded from the constituency of the agriculturists and not the Gopalak societies which are necessarily animal husbandry societies. The said societies are not governed by the exception carved out in Section 11(1) (i) of the Act. He has submitted that it is only milk produce societies which are registered as such are excluded from the constituency of the agriculturists and not the Gopalak societies which are necessarily animal husbandry societies. The said societies are not governed by the exception carved out in Section 11(1) (i) of the Act. He has also submitted that exclusion of the animal husbandry products from the list of agricultural produce will not govern the meaning of Section 11(1)(i) of the Act. He too has relied upon the bye-laws of the Gopalak societies to impress upon the Court that these societies are also engaged in advancing agricultural credit to its members. 12. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with learned advocates Mr. Jani, Mr. Vaghela and Mr. Kavina. The preliminary objections raised by Mr. Jani require to be rejected outright. 13. We are alive to the fact that the Agricultural Produce Markets Act has been enacted to establish and regulate markets for sale and purchase of agricultural produce to protect farm producers from being exploited by the middlemen and profiteers and also to secure fair return for their produce. Thus, it is made for the betterment of agriculturists. We would not resort to a pedantic approach for interpretation of an enactment which is enacted essentially for the benefit of the agriculturists. 14. The Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulations of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce in the State of Gujarat. The Act has been amended by Gujarat Act No.21 of 2006. The statement of objects and reasons for the said amendment reads "Since the animal husbandry products are not agricultural produce and it is not the produce from the land, it is considered necessary to delete the animal husbandry products from the definition of the agricultural produce in Sec.2 and also from the Schedule, appended to the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963. Incidentally, clause (i) of sub-sec.(1) of Sec.11 of the said Act is also amended accordingly." 15. Incidentally, clause (i) of sub-sec.(1) of Sec.11 of the said Act is also amended accordingly." 15. Clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act defined the words "agricultural produce" to mean "all produce whether processed or not of agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry specified in the Schedule." Since its amendment by Gujarat Act No.21 of 2006, the phrase "agricultural produce" is defined to mean "all produce whether processed or not, of agriculture and horticulture, specified in the Schedule." Item (IX) of the Schedule prior to its amendment by Gujarat Act No.21 of 2006 referred to the entries "eggs, paultry, cattle, sheep, goats, wool, butter, ghee and milk" under the heading 'Animal Husbandry Products'. Since its amendment by Gujarat Act No.21 of 2006, the heading, "Animal Husbandry Products" and the items specified in entries thereunder, are deleted. Corresponding to the said amendment, clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act has been amended to specifically exclude the milk produce cooperative societies from the electorate of the agriculturists. 16. We are of the opinion that once the 'animal husbandry' and the 'animal husbandry products' are taken out from the definition of the words 'agricultural produce', the persons or the societies dealing in animal husbandry or animal husbandry products will not be governed by the provisions contained in the Act. If such persons or societies are not governed by the Act they cannot form part of the electorate either. Precisely, that is the reason why the milk produce societies i.e. the societies engaged in animal husbandry products are specifically and expressly excluded from the constituency of the agriculturists. The exception made in respect of such societies is not qualified by any other proviso or exception. In our opinion, the legislature has intended to exclude these societies completely. If we accept the arguments advanced by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents, we would be making an exception within the exception i.e. the milk produce societies which are expressly excluded will be re-inducted in the constituency of the agriculturists under the guise that they also advance agricultural credit to their members. In our opinion, the exclusion is complete. Even if these societies do advance agricultural credit to their members, they, being engaged in animal husbandry products, stand excluded from the constituency of the agriculturists. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this petition. In our opinion, the exclusion is complete. Even if these societies do advance agricultural credit to their members, they, being engaged in animal husbandry products, stand excluded from the constituency of the agriculturists. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this petition. We hold that the respondent nos.5 to 23 - Gopalak societies are excluded from the constituency of the agriculturists. The names of the members of their managing committees be deleted from the final voters' list published on 29th December 2009. The order dated 17th December 2009 made by the authorised officer is hereby quashed and set-aside. The parties will bear their own cost. The Registry will issue the writ forthwith. 18. Learned advocate Mr. Vaghela has appeared for some of the Gopalak societies. He has requested that this order be stayed for a period of one month from today. The request is rejected. Petition allowed.