JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) Rule. Mr. N.J. Shah learned AGP and Mr. B.T. Rao learned counsel waive service of rule on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2 and 3 respectively. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally today. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the orders dated 27/28.07.2011 and 04.08.2011 passed by the Authorized Officer & Marketing Officer (Marketing), Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Rajkot, respondent no.2 herein whereby, the name of a representative of the petitioner-Bank was declined to be included in the voters' list of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dhoraji (for short, “the APMC”) for constituting the Managing Committee of different Primary Level Agricultural Co-operative Societies. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner herein is a District Central Co-operative Bank and dispenses agricultural credit to primary level agricultural co-operative societies. The Director of Agricultural Marketing & Rural Finance, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar issued Notification dated 21.06.2011 declaring elections to the APMC, Dhoraji. As per the said Notification, the elections are scheduled to be held on 26.09.2011. Thereafter, a detailed election programme was published on 05.07.2011. As per the election programme, the Primary Level Agricultural Co-operative Societies were required to forward the list of members of their respective Managing Committees to the Authorized Officer by 12.07.2011. 3. It is the case of the petitioner-Bank that the Bye-laws of all the Primary Level Agricultural Co-operative Societies provide for induction of a Representative of the petitioner-Bank in all the Managing Committees of the Societies as all the Primary Level Societies are members of the petitioner-Bank. 4. Pursuant to the issuance of the above Notification, in all 28 Primary Level Agricultural Co-operative Societies forwarded the list of their respective members of Managing Committee to the Authorized Officer, which also included the name of a Representative of the petitioner-Bank. On 15.07.2011 respondent no.2 published the Preliminary Voters' List of APMC, Dhoraji. However, in the said List, the name of the Representative of the petitioner-Bank was excluded. Therefore, the concerned Society filed objections before respondent no.2-authority. The said objections came to be rejected by impugned order dated 27/28.07.2011. Thereafter, respondent no.2 published the Provisional Voters' List on 31.07.2011. The petitioner-Bank submitted its objections before respondent no.2 on 02.08.2011. However, the said objections also came to be rejected by impugned order dated 04.08.2011. Therefore, the concerned Society filed objections before respondent no.2-authority. The said objections came to be rejected by impugned order dated 27/28.07.2011. Thereafter, respondent no.2 published the Provisional Voters' List on 31.07.2011. The petitioner-Bank submitted its objections before respondent no.2 on 02.08.2011. However, the said objections also came to be rejected by impugned order dated 04.08.2011. Thereafter, respondent no.2 published the Final Voters' List on 10.08.2011. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of respondent no.2-authority, the petitioner-Bank has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr B.B. Naik learned Sr. Advocate appearing with Ms. Shailee M. Shah for the petitioner-Bank submitted that a Representative of the petitioner-Bank regularly participates in all meetings of the Managing Committee of the Primary Level Agricultural Co-operative Societies and has a voice in all decisions taken thereon. It is submitted that once the list is submitted under the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act (for short, “the Market Act”) r/w. Rules 5 & 7 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules (for short, “the Market Rules”), respondent no.2-authority is not competent to go beyond the veracity of the said list. 6.1 Learned counsel submitted that the reliance placed by respondent no.2-authority on the Bye-laws of the Primary Level Agricultural Co-operative Societies is misconceived since the petitioner-Bank had only sought for inclusion of the name of its Representative in the Voters' List and not a voting right. Hence, the impugned orders passed by respondent no.2-authority is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 6.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank further submitted that in respect of elections to some other APMCs, the names of Representatives of the petitioner-Bank have been included in the Voters' List. Hence, the impugned decision of respondent no.2-authority also suffers from the vice of discrimination and arbitrariness. 7.0 Mr. N.J. Shah learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent-authority submitted that this Court should not exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by interfering at this stage with the election process. He submitted that alternative remedy of filing an election petition under Rule 28 of the Market Rules is available to the petitioner-Bank and that the petitioner-Bank could avail of the same. 7.1 Learned AGP submitted that the the respondent-authority duly considered the objections raised by the petitioner-Bank and has, thereafter, passed the impugned orders. He submitted that alternative remedy of filing an election petition under Rule 28 of the Market Rules is available to the petitioner-Bank and that the petitioner-Bank could avail of the same. 7.1 Learned AGP submitted that the the respondent-authority duly considered the objections raised by the petitioner-Bank and has, thereafter, passed the impugned orders. He submitted that under the Bye-laws of the respective Societies, no right of voting is conferred upon the Representative of the petitioner-Bank. What is conferred is the right to take a decision with regard to matters pertaining to finance and internal administration. He, therefore, submitted that the respondent-authority has rightly excluded the names of Representatives of the petitioner-Bank from the Voters' List. He further submitted that since the final list is already published, the petition deserves to be rejected only on that ground. 8. Mr. B.T. Rao learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 adopted the submissions advanced by learned AGP. Over and above, he submitted that the authority concerned has rightly excluded the name of the Representative of the petitioner-Bank from the Voters' List since the inclusion of the name would confer a right upon such Representative of the petitioner-Bank to vote. He submitted that the Representative is made a Member only for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Bank by ensuring that the finance given by the Bank is properly utilized. He, therefore, submitted that the respondent-authority has rightly excluded the names of the Representatives of the petitioner-Bank from the Voters' List and this Court may not interfere with the same. 9. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. Admittedly, the dispute in the present petition pertains to non-inclusion of the names of the Representatives of the petitioner-Bank in the Voters' List. The Preliminary Voters' List came to be published on 15.07.2011, the Provisional Voters' List on 31.07.2011 and the Final Voters' List on 10.08.2011. The elections are scheduled to be held on 26.09.2011. The question regarding jurisdiction of this Court in matters pertaining to elections has been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. V. R.D. Rohit, Authorized Officer & Co-operative Officer (Marketing) reported in 2006 (1) G.C.D. 211 and more particularly, on the observations made in Paras – 30 to 32 of the said judgment, which reads as under; “30. The arguments advanced by Mr Patel appears to be attractive, however, in substance, devoid of any merit. Having regard to the language and terminology of rule 28 of the rules, we are of the view that it leaves no room of doubt that it includes the question of inclusion, exclusion or wrongful inclusion or exclusion in an illegal, arbitrary or malafide manner of name of an eligible voter in voters' list and the question can be gone into in an election petition under Rule 28 and, therefore, in an election election petition such a question can be validly raised, adjudicated and ultimately relief granted, if a case is made out and it is proved that on account of such wrongful inclusion or exclusion the result of the election is materially affected. In any case, the efficacious remedy provided under the Act would not entitle the petitioner to contend as a matter or right that he is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this court. 31. On the question of maintainability of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in our opinion, the law is well settled. Mr Patel, invited our attention to the decision reported in 1988 GLH 430. There the Division Bench, after quoting the judgment of a Full Bench in the case of Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (18 GLR 714) where the principles have been clearly enumerated and held that extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is very wide, the Court should be slow in exercising the said jurisdiction where alternative efficacious remedy under the Act is available but however, if the impugned order is an ultra vires order or is nullity as being ex-facie without jurisdiction. the question of exhausting alternative remedy would hardly arise. 31.1. In the case of Mehsana Dist.Coop.Sales and Purchase Union v. State of Gujarat ( 1988 (2) GLR 1060 ), after following the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case reported in the case of Gujarat University v. N U Rajguru, (1988 (1) GLR 308), the Court have noted the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under: "there may be cases where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances may exist to justify bye-passing alternative remedies". In the case of Manda Jaganath v. K S Rathnam, reported in AIR 2004 SC 3600, the Apex Court has held after considering the provisions of Article 329 (B) of the Constitution of India that "there are special situations wherein writ jurisdiction can be exercised but, special situation means error having the effect of interfering in the free flow of the scheduled election or hinder the progress of the election which is the paramount consideration." In the case of Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, reported in 2000(8) SCC page 216, the Apex Court held that the order issued by the Election Commission is open to judicial review on the ground of malafide or arbitrary exercise of powers. 32. We have gone through the aforesaid decisions closely. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the principles laid down therein. The sum and substance of those decisions apply to a situation where this Court would like to entertain a petition on the foundation that the order is ultra vires and/or without jurisdiction and/or is violating principles of natural justice. Thus, in an exceptional case, this Court can exercise the power of judicial review, which is a basic structure of the situation in such cases more particularly, in the election process. One thing is clear that this Court ordinarily would not like to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution when the process of election has been set in motion even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. 32.1. The Supreme Court, in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swamy (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors (2001) 8 SCC 509, while dealing with the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, held that in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified society where the election process having been set in motion, the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. It was held that the proper remedy is by way of election petition before the Election Tribunal. 33. It was held that the proper remedy is by way of election petition before the Election Tribunal. 33. In view of the above discussion, we answer the Reference as under: i. A person whose name is not included in the voters' list can avail benefit of provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules by filing Election Petition. ii. As the authority under Rule 28 has wide power to cancel, confirm and amend the election and to direct to hold fresh election in case the election is set aside, remedy under Rule 28 is an efficacious remedy. iii. Even though a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable though alternative remedy is available, the powers are to be exercised in case of extraordinary or special circumstances such as where the order is ultra vires or nullity and/or ex facie without jurisdiction. The exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such questions are to be decided in an Election Petition under Rule 28 of the Rules. 34. As the above are answers to the Reference, all the petitions are to be listed for referring them back to the concerned Division Benches to pass appropriate orders, in view of the above answers to the reference.” 10. The principle laid down in the aforesaid decision is that the non-inclusion of a person's name in the Voters' List cannot be termed as an extra-ordinary circumstance warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the issue regarding non-inclusion of names in the Voters' List can be decided in an Election Petition under Rule 28 of the Market Rules as the Authority under Rule 28 has been conferred with powers. 11. Similar principle has been laid down in an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.10294/2011 & cognate matters dated 09.09.2011. 12. In another unreported decision of this Court rendered by a Division Bench in Special Civil Application No.13006 of 2011 dated 09.09.2011, it has been observed as under; “6. 11. Similar principle has been laid down in an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.10294/2011 & cognate matters dated 09.09.2011. 12. In another unreported decision of this Court rendered by a Division Bench in Special Civil Application No.13006 of 2011 dated 09.09.2011, it has been observed as under; “6. Having considered the rival contentions raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties, averments made in the petition and the documentary evidence produced on record, it transpires that in the present case, the election notification has been declared and the date of filing of nomination has also passed and the election is at an advance stage. Further, it is pertinent to note that the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy available under Section 145(U) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 6.1 So far as the issue regarding holding of election as per Rule 3-A (8) of the Rules is concerned, it is required to be noted that earlier the said issue has been decided by this Court while dealing with Special Civil Application No.9748 of 2009 and the coordinate bench has rendered a reasoned order and, therefore, the relief sought for in that respect in present petition cannot be granted. 6.2 Here it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the decision in the case of Election Commission of India (supra) relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondent No.3, which are as under: “28. Election disputes are not just private civil disputes between two parties. Though there is an individual or a few individuals arrayed as parties before the Court but the stakes of the constituency as a whole are on trial. Whichever way the lis terminates it affects the fate of the constituency and the citizens generally. A conscientious approach with overriding consideration for welfare of the constituency and strengthening the democracy is called for. Neither turning a blind eye to the controversies which have arisen nor assuming a role of over- enthusiastic activist would do. The two extremes have to be avoided in dealing with election disputes.” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) The Court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The two extremes have to be avoided in dealing with election disputes.” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) The Court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The Court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the courts indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the Court would act with reluctance and shall not act except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material.” Thus, it is crystal clear that the Court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. It is also required to be noted that care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilize the courts indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. 6.3 Mr. Vaghela has also rightly relied upon the decision in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha (supra), whereby it is held that the preparation of electoral roll is part of election process and if there is any breach of the Rules in preparing the electoral roll, the same can be called in question after the declaration of the result of the election by means of an election petition before the tribunal.” 13. In a recent judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patel Talshabhai Purabhai V. Authorized Officer & Auditor Grade reported in 2011 GLHEL-HC 224844, the following observations made in Paras-11 & 12 are relevant; “11. Going strictly by the rules of precedents, stare decisis and judicial discipline, the legal issue of maintainability of the petitions is squarely covered by clear propositions laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. (supra). Going strictly by the rules of precedents, stare decisis and judicial discipline, the legal issue of maintainability of the petitions is squarely covered by clear propositions laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. (supra). Although the power and discretion vested in the High Court by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution could not be taken away by any judgment, clear guideline is provided for the exercise thereof specifically in the cases of exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list of an APMC. It is laid down in no uncertain terms by the Full Bench that exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstance warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and such questions are to be decided in an election petition under Rule 28 of the Rules. It is also categorically laid down that the authorities under Rule 28 have wide powers to cancel, confirm and amend the election and to direct holding of fresh election and hence the remedy under Rule 28 is an efficacious remedy. Therefore, it is practically impossible and not open for this Court to take a view different from the aforesaid propositions of law. 11.1 The Apex Court has, in Gujarat University v. N.U.Rajguru [1988 (1) GLR 308], held that where a statute provides for election to an office, or an authority or institution and if it further provides a machinery or forum for determination of dispute arising out of election, the aggrieved person should pursue his remedy before the forum provided by the statute. While considering an election dispute, it must be kept in mind that the right to vote, contest or dispute election is neither a fundamental or common law right; instead it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions. It is not permissible to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution by-passing the machinery designated by the Act for determination of the election dispute. Ordinarily, the remedy provided by the statute must be followed before the authority designated therein. But there may be cases where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances may exist to justify by-passing the alternative remedies. Ordinarily, the remedy provided by the statute must be followed before the authority designated therein. But there may be cases where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances may exist to justify by-passing the alternative remedies. 11.2 The contention of the petitioners that alternative remedy under Rule 28 is neither appropriate nor expedient on account of the adjudicating authorities being nominees of the Government and not bound by any period of limitation for concluding the proceedings before them has to be stated to be rejected. There cannot be a presumption of bias against any adjudicating authority or quasi-judicial forum only because of the fact that they are appointed by the Government. And the provisions of Rule 28 clearly indicate the sense of urgency underlying the process of enquiry and decision. The various decisions, many of which are referred hereinabove, on the issues related to inclusion or exclusion of names in the voters' list would clearly control and guide the authorities in deciding election disputes. Even then, if any party were aggrieved by an illegal order after taking recourse to the alternative remedy or by delay defeating the ends of justice, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court could be invoked in appropriate cases. On the other hand, if this Court were to sit in appeal over every decision of the authorized/election officer resulting into inclusion or exclusion of names in the preliminary, provisional or final lists of voters, the process and the time-table of election would certainly be affected. It must be noted that the time-table of election programme is virtually fixed by the provisions of Rules 5 to 8 prescribing time-limits for every stage of the process. Rule 8 (2) ordains that the final list shall be prepared at least 30 days before the date fixed for nomination of candidates for the election. Any intervention by the High Court, after hearing the parties and due adjudication, having the effect of altering the final voters' list would certainly not leave the minimum period of 30 days which must intervene between preparation of final lists and nomination of candidates for the election. Thus, any order resulting into inclusion or exclusion of names in the final voters' list would necessarily violate the provisions of Rule 8 (2). Thus, any order resulting into inclusion or exclusion of names in the final voters' list would necessarily violate the provisions of Rule 8 (2). Therefore, it may be inexpedient and improper for this Court to exercise its discretion and power under Article 226 of the Constitution by carving out exceptions on the basis of facts of each case. Besides that, as it happened in most of the cases presently before this Court, the important facts related to eligibility or ineligibility of a person to be in the voters' list are not undisputed. Therefore, this Court would be required to indulge in the exercise of ascertaining the facts before directing inclusion or exclusion of any name in the voters' list. Such elaborate adjudication of facts and legal issues springing therefrom would necessarily either impede the process of election or impose an amended final voters' list at short notice for the candidates or deprive the interested and eligible persons of the opportunity of being a candidate. In cases where principles of natural justice are alleged to have been violated by the authorized officer in making the impugned order, denial of opportunity of being heard as well as the prejudice caused thereby are also matters in controversy and raise questions of disputed facts. As noted at the outset, polling at the elections in question here is scheduled to take place on 18.03.2011 and 30.03.2011 and voting cannot be legally ordered to be postponed till full-fledged adjudication of all the issues arising in the petitions.” 14. However, in another unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.6587/2010 to 6596/2010 dated 15.07.2010, in Paras – 6 to 13, it has been observed as under; “6. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the statement made before this Court, since the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioners were not included in the final voters' list, the petitioners addressed representations dated 17th May, 2010 to the Authorised Officer inter alia asking him to include the name of the concerned member of the Managing Committee in the voters' list. Vide notice dated 19th May, 2010, the Authorised Officer called upon the petitioner Societies as well as the representatives of the respondent No.5–Bank to remain present for hearing on 26th May, 2010. Vide notice dated 19th May, 2010, the Authorised Officer called upon the petitioner Societies as well as the representatives of the respondent No.5–Bank to remain present for hearing on 26th May, 2010. Subsequently vide order dated 27th May, 2010 made by the respondent No.3–Election Officer, the names of the representatives of the Bank were deleted. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove. It may be noted that despite the fact that the petition was admitted on 31st May, 2010, till date no counter affidavit had been filed by any of the respondents in reply to the averments made in the petition. 7. Mr. B.B. Naik, learned senior advocate for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order made by the Election Officer. Inviting attention to the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 (the Rules) and more particularly Rule 8(1)(a) of the Rules, it is submitted that under the said Rules, after publication of the provisional list of voters, the Authorised Officer can consider objections only against new names which have been included in the provisional voters' list after the publication of the preliminary voters’ list. Therefore, the Authorised Officer had authority to consider only the objections against new names entered in the provisional voters' list but had no authority to delete the names of persons who were included both in the preliminary as well as provisional voters' list. Inviting attention to the impugned order, it is submitted that though the said order refers to objections having been received from three persons, the said statement is false on the face of the record inasmuch as in the earlier order dated 17th April, 2010 as well as in the notice dated 19th May, 2010, there is no mention regarding any objections having been received and that till date, no copy of the objections has been provided to the petitioner Societies or their representatives. It is further pointed out that when the petitioners had challenged the earlier order before this Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader had made a statement that the Government would withdraw the order under challenge and reconsider the decision. That the Court had observed that as the order is withdrawn, nothing was required to be done in the petition. It is further pointed out that when the petitioners had challenged the earlier order before this Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader had made a statement that the Government would withdraw the order under challenge and reconsider the decision. That the Court had observed that as the order is withdrawn, nothing was required to be done in the petition. It is submitted that once the order was withdrawn, necessary consequence was that the names of the members of the petitioner Societies stood included in the final voters' list. It is submitted that no liberty was granted to the Authorised Officer to again consider the question of inclusion or exclusion of the members of the petitioner Societies. Hence, the further exercise carried out by the Authorised Officer as well as the order passed by the Election Officer are without authority of law. 8. Mr. P.K. Jani, learned Government Pleader for the respondents has vehemently opposed the petitions contending that the dispute involved being primarily an election dispute the petitioners should be relegated to the alternative statutory remedy by way of Election Petition and that the Court may not entertain the present petitions since the election process has already been completed. On merits it is submitted that the representatives of the respondent No.5 – Bank were not qualified to be members of the petitioner Societies; that under the Bye-laws of the respondent No.5–Bank, there was no provision for nominating members to the Managing Committee of the societies availing financial assistance from the Bank. In the circumstances, the Election Officer was justified in directing deletion of the names of the nominees of the respondent No.5 – Bank from the final voters’ list. 9. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate appearing for the newly added respondent in Special Civil Application No.6587 of 2010, has submitted that the petitions have been moved after the date of the election. That once the election date was over, no prayer for exercising franchise could have been entertained thereafter; that the election comes to an end the moment the last vote is cast and thereafter, there cannot be a prayer to cast further votes. That once the election date was over, no prayer for exercising franchise could have been entertained thereafter; that the election comes to an end the moment the last vote is cast and thereafter, there cannot be a prayer to cast further votes. Next, it is submitted that Special Civil Application No.6587 of 2010 suffers from the vice of non-joinder of parties in inasmuch as though the petitioner had raised objections against inclusion of the names of the representatives of the respondent No.5 – Bank, the petitioner has not been impleaded as a respondent. It is further submitted that the bye-laws of the respondent No.5–Bank do not permit such nomination. That though the respondent No.5–Bank had framed bye-laws to that effect, the said bye-laws had been not been approved by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Referring to the order dated 13th May, 2010 made by the Court in Special Civil Application No.5950 of 2010 and cognate matters, it is submitted that it is too strict a reading of the order to say that the withdrawal of the earlier order was unconditional. It is contended that the earlier order made by the Authorised Officer on 17th April, 2010 deleting the names of the representatives of the respondent No.5 – Bank from the final voters' list came to be withdrawn on 13th May, 2010, but the same was not given effect by amending the final voters' list, in the circumstances, it can in no manner be inferred that the names of the members which had been deleted by the earlier order stand included in the final voters' list. It is further contended that mere withdrawal of the order by which the names of some of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioners were deleted, would not affect the final voters' list. That in law, the list as on 17th April, 2010 existed and no other person could be permitted to vote. Lastly, it is submitted that an election petition is the only remedy which is available to the petitioners and that the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained. 10. Mr. That in law, the list as on 17th April, 2010 existed and no other person could be permitted to vote. Lastly, it is submitted that an election petition is the only remedy which is available to the petitioners and that the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained. 10. Mr. Shirish Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent No.5 – Bank has invited attention to Rule 7 of the Rules to submit that whenever a general election of the market committee is to be held, under clause (i) of sub-rule (1) thereof, every co-operative society dispensing agricultural credit in the market area is required to communicate the full names of the members of its managing committee together with the place of residence, the authorised officer has only to see the list of the members of the Managing Committee of the Co-operative society dispensing agricultural credit in the market area. That under sub-rule (2) thereof the authorised officer, within seven days from the date fixed under sub-rule (1) is required to cause to be prepared the list of voters as required under rule 5 on the basis of the information received under sub-rule (1) and if necessary, after making such inquiry as he may deem fit. It is submitted that the inquiry contemplated under sub-rule (2) is only for the purpose of ascertaining the veracity of the details provided in the list sent by the Society, the same does not empower the authorised officer to decide as to whether or not a member is qualified to be a member of the Managing Committee. 11. The facts are not in dispute. Pursuant to the election programme declared on 03rd March, 2010, the preliminary list of voters came to be published on 16th March, 2010 which included the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Societies including the representatives of the respondent No.5 – Bank. Subsequently, the provisional list of voters came to be published on 05th April, 2010 wherein also, the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Societies including the representatives of the respondent No.5 – Bank were included. Subsequently, the provisional list of voters came to be published on 05th April, 2010 wherein also, the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Societies including the representatives of the respondent No.5 – Bank were included. However, it was only at the stage of preparation of the final voters’ list that the names of the members of the managing committee of the petitioners who were representatives of the respondent No.5 – Bank came to be deleted. Thereafter, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of writ petitions being Special Civil Applications No.5950 of 2010 to 5962 of 2010 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 13th May, 2010, by observing that in view of the statement made by the Assistant Government Pleader that the order is withdrawn, nothing is required to be heard in the group of matters. A perusal of the order dated 13th May, 2010 indicates that no liberty was reserved by the respondent No.4 for passing a fresh order as regards the inclusion or exclusion of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Societies in the voters' list. Despite the aforesaid position, the respondent No.4 issued notice of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent No.5 – Bank. Pursuant to the notice the petitioners were heard by the respondent No.4 – Authorised Officer, whereas the impugned order dated 27th May, 2010 came to be passed by the respondent No.3 - Election Officer. 12. As can be seen from the impugned order, it is recorded therein that after publication of the preliminary voters’ list objections have been received against the inclusion of names of those members of the Managing Committees of societies who had been nominated as representatives of the Jamnagar District Co-operative Bank. That on 26th March, 2010 the Authorised Officer had addressed a communication in this regard to the concerned Society and the Bank, however, since no reply was received from the Bank or the society by 5th April, 2010 the provisional voters’ list was published in terms of the preliminary voters’ list. Thereafter upon receipt of reply from the Bank, the Authorised officer had deleted the names of representatives of the Bank from the final voters’ list. Thereafter upon receipt of reply from the Bank, the Authorised officer had deleted the names of representatives of the Bank from the final voters’ list. That the petitioners upon filing Special Civil Application before the High Court had obtained order wherein the Court had given a decision with the remarks “Government will reconsider the decision”. Hence, it was found necessary to give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the Authorised officer had given them an opportunity of hearing on 26th May, 2010. Thereafter, after recording the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, it has been further recorded in the impugned order that the High Court has in the order dated 13th May, 2010 observed that “Government will reconsider the decision”, hence it is necessary to afford an opportunity of hearing and there is merit in the contention that the Authorised officer no longer has the jurisdiction in this regard. But as per the decision of the High Court, the order of the Authorised Officer having been withdrawn, as a representative of the Election Officer, and as a part of the election process, the hearing has been kept. It is further observed that there a provision for nomination of a representative of the Bank in the Bye-laws of the Societies, however, there is no such provision in the Bank making the nominations, which has been accepted by the Bank. In the past the Bank had proposed such amendment in its bye-laws which had been rejected. Hence, the nominations are without authority. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners by placing reliance upon the decisions of this High Court in the case of Mehsana District Co-op. Purchase & Sales Union Ltd. vs. Dhadhusan Beej Utpadak Rupantar and Vechan Karnari Sahkari Mandali Ltd. & Ors., 1998 (1) G.L.H. 170 and Chaudhari Rameshbhai Dalsangbhai & Ors. vs. Director, Agricultural Market & Rural Finance & Anr., 1996 (2) G.L.R. 165 have been brushed aside on the specious ground that in the present case, the Court has not made any order to grant voting rights to the petitioners but has ordered that “Government will reconsider the decision” and as such the said decisions would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. It is finally held that nominated members only represent the Bank. It is finally held that nominated members only represent the Bank. The said person does not have any authority to be included in the voting of the elections of the Market Committee or to have his name entered in the voters’ list. Before the Authorised Officer the submissions of the concerned person and society appear to be merely election oriented. The nominating Bank itself has not raised any objection or made any submissions in this regard. The Bank does not derive any power under its bye-laws to make such nominations, which has been accepted by the Bank in its submissions. Hence, the nomination itself is not supported by law. Thus the nomination being election oriented, the Authorised officer has deleted the names from the final voters’ list. The said decision appears to be appropriate. The Authorised Officer not having the power to make any addition or deletion after the publication of the final voters’ list, no order is required to be made to include these thirteen names in the final voters’ list. 13. Examining the validity of the impugned order in the light of the relevant statutory provisions, it may be germane to refer to Rule 8 of the Rules which reads thus:- Provisional and final publication of lists of voters.-(1)As soon as a list of voters is prepared under rule 5, it shall be published by the authorised officer by affixing a copy thereof at the office of the market committee and at some conspicuous place in the principal market yard in the market area along with a notice stating that any person whose name is not entered in the list of voters and who claims that his name should be entered therein or any person who thinks that his name or the name of some other person has been wrongly entered therein or has not been correctly entered, may, within fourteen days from the date of the publication of the notice, apply to the authorised officer for an amendment of the list of voters. 1[(1-A) After receiving applications if any, under sub-rule (1) a revised draft list of voters shall be published by the authorised officer by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of Agricultural Produce Market Committee and at some conspicuous place in the principal market yard of the marker area, alongwith a notice stating that any person who wishes to raise any objection against any new name entered in this list, may apply within seven days from the date of publication of this notice to the authorised officer for an amendment in the revised draft list of voters.] If any application is received under 1[sub-rule (1-A)], the authorised officer shall decide the same and shall cause to be prepared and published the final list of voters, after making such amendments therein as may be necessary in pursuance of the decision given by him on the application. The final list shall be prepared at atleast thirty days before the date fixed for the nomination of candidates for the election. Rule 8(1-A) of the Rules only talks of revising the list of voters upon such objections relatable to inclusion of any new names entered in the list. Therefore, while publishing the final list under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules, the Authorised Officer had limited powers which would not permit the Authorised Officer to then delete the names which were already included. This has to be appreciated in context of the fact the under rule 5 of the Rules, for the purpose of section 11(1)(i) of the Act, a list of members of the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society dispensing agricultural credit in the market area was required to be prepared and sent by such co-operative society to the Authorised Officer. Under rule 7 of the Rules, more particularly sub-rule (2) thereof, the Authorised Officer has to, within 7 days from the date fixed under sub-rule (1) of rule 7, prepare the list of voters as stipulated by rule 5 on the basis of the information received from each co-operative society. Sub-rule (2) of rule 7 of the Rules states in the latter part after making such inquiry as the Authorised Officer may deem fit, if necessary. Sub-rule (2) of rule 7 of the Rules states in the latter part after making such inquiry as the Authorised Officer may deem fit, if necessary. However, such inquiry cannot be treated to be extending beyond ascertainment of the details submitted by the co-operative society and testing the veracity thereof, namely whether a particular person whose name has been included by the co-operative society in the list is a member of the Managing Committee or not, or whether he resides at the place stated in the list by the co-operative society or not. Once the stage of that inquiry is over, rule 8(1) of the Rules indicates that the Authorised Officer is duty bound to publish the list of voters prepared under rule 5 read with rule 7 and it is at that stage that the objections as to inclusion or exclusion are to be raised. Therefore, the scope of inquiry which an Authorised Officer can undertake is limited statutorily by the rules and it is not possible to expand such scope. The contention on behalf of respondent authorities that respondent No.5 – Co-operative Bank cannot send a nominee to the Managing Committee of the agricultural credit society deserves to be stated only to be rejected. None of the rules relating to preparation of the list of voters permits the Authorised Officer to travel beyond the list of members of the Managing Committee of the agricultural credit society. Hence, the entire basis adopted by the respondent authority is contrary and in violation of the statutory provisions relatable to conduct of elections and preparation of list of voters prior thereto.” 15. In the decision rendered in Patel Talshabhai Purabhai's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has followed the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd.. case (supra). However, in the decision rendered by another Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.6587 of 2010 dated 15.07.2010, a different view has been taken. 16. case (supra). However, in the decision rendered by another Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.6587 of 2010 dated 15.07.2010, a different view has been taken. 16. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a recent decision of the Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.5166 of 2003 dated 06.07.2011 in the case of M/s. Gammon India Ltd. V. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, wherein, it has been held that if a Bench, in identical fact-situation, is permitted to come to a conclusion directly opposed to the conclusion reached by another Bench on earlier occasion, that will be destructive of the institutional integrity itself. It has been further observed that if a Bench wishes to take a view different from the one taken by the earlier Bench, the propriety demands that it should place the matter before the appropriate authority so that the case is referred to a larger Bench, for which provisions exist in the statute. In view of the above, the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd.'s. case (supra) shall prevail considering the facts of the present case. 17. In this case, when the petition was filed, the Final Voters' List was already published and the election is scheduled to be held on 26.09.2011. The petitioner-Bank is aggrieved by the action of the respondent-authority of non-inclusion of the names of its Representatives in the Voters' List and it has not challenged the impugned order on the ground that it is ultra vires and/or without jurisdiction and/or in violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court could have looked into the question of exclusion of names from the Voters' List only if the names had been included in any of the Lists. The inclusion of name/s, after the finalization of the Voters' List, as in this case, would be contrary to the provisions of Rule 8 of the Market Rules. 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principle laid down in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd.'s case (supra), we are of the opinion that the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner-Bank is to file an Election Petition under Rule 28 of the Market Rules. 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principle laid down in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd.'s case (supra), we are of the opinion that the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner-Bank is to file an Election Petition under Rule 28 of the Market Rules. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. 19. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Parties shall bear their own costs.