JUDGMENT : (Per : MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA) 1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are directed against the order dated 03.10.2011 of Director, Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance of the State Government, whereby the petitioners' licences for the year 2011-2012 were cancelled in exercise of powers under section 27 (4) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (for short, “the Act”). Even as appeals were filed from the aforesaid impugned orders and applications for grant of interim relief were rejected, by order dated 24.10.2011 herein, the appellate authority was directed to hear and decide the appeals latest by 05.11.2011. Pursuant to that, Deputy Secretary (Appeal) has decided the appeals by order dated 04.11.2011 and that order rejecting the appeals is also called into question by way of draft amendment by the petitioners. That amendment is allowed and those orders dated 3.10.2011 and 04.11.2011 in the appeals are impugned herein. The facts in each of the petitions being similar and the legal issue required to be decided being common, all the petitions are heard and disposed by this common judgment on the basis of the facts in the first petition, i.e. SCA No.16210 of 2011. 2. It may be pertinent to note the common background of facts of the cases wherein the petitioner co-cooperative marking societies have been holding licences for purchase and sale of agricultural produce for its members who are primary level co-operative societies of Kalavad taluka or individuals. They have been registered since the year 2007 and operating in the market area since then. The market area is covered by Kalavad Agricultural Produce Market Committee (KAPMC) of which the Market Committee was elected in the year 2007 and the term of elected body was to expire on 24.6.2011. The Chairman of KAPMC made representations on 02.02.2011 and 26.02.2011 for declaration of election and preferred writ petition, being SCA No.2872 of 2011, for holding of election and restraining the State authorities from appointing administrator. At that stage, the State authorities issued notices under section 46 of the Act to show cause as to why elected body of the Market Committee should not be superseded, and alleged therein illegality in grant of licences to the petitioner co-operative marketing societies. At that stage, the State authorities issued notices under section 46 of the Act to show cause as to why elected body of the Market Committee should not be superseded, and alleged therein illegality in grant of licences to the petitioner co-operative marketing societies. Those notices were challenged by other writ petitions, being SCA Nos.4075 to 4078 of 2011, wherein this Court issued interim direction to grant adjournment in the proceedings initiated under section 46 of the Act. In the meantime, Director, Agriculture Marketing and Rule Finance, respondent No.2 herein, issued show cause notice dated 23.3.2011 to the petitioner in suo moto exercise of powers under section 27 (4) of the Act. Those notices were challenged in SCA Nos.4207 to 4212 of 2011, but the petitions were withdrawn with a view to filing reply to the show cause notices. Thus, in short, KAPMC was sought to be superseded and the licences of the petitioner societies were sought to be cancelled on the same basis with the allegation of licences having been illegally issued. 2.1 In SCA No.2872 of 2011, this Court observed in the order dated 13.7.2011 that the State Government shall first decide as to whether it shall extend the term of KAPMC under section 11 (4) (aa) or exercise powers under section 11 (5) (a) to appoint administrator. The State Government issued an order on the same day , i.e. 13.7.2011, not to extend the term of KAPMC and appoint administrator; and charge of KAPMC was taken over on the next day. Therefore, again Chairman of KAPMC filed the petition, being SCA No.8827 of 2011 and, on 15.7.2011, a statement was made on behalf of the State Government to withdraw both the aforesaid orders. It is alleged that the aforesaid order dated 13.7.2011 was based upon illegal grant of licences to the petitioner societies in spite of pendency of proceedings initiated under sections 27 (4) and 46 of the Act. Thus, the issue of legality of holding licences by the petitioners was pre-judged by the authorities and the opportunity of hearing granted thereafter to the petitioner was an empty formality and an eyewash, according to the petitioner. Thus, the issue of legality of holding licences by the petitioners was pre-judged by the authorities and the opportunity of hearing granted thereafter to the petitioner was an empty formality and an eyewash, according to the petitioner. 2.2 On the other hand, the State authorities again made a fresh order dated 27.7.2011 not to extend the term of elected body of KAPMC and appoint respondent No.3 as administrator, again on the grounds, inter alia, that illegality was committed in grant of licences to the petitioner. Those orders were challenged in SCA No.9704 of 2011 wherein, by order dated 30.8.2011, this Court directed the State authorities to hold election of KAPMC within a period of three months. 2.3 However, the election programme which was required to be declared latest by 05.9.2011 was not declared and nine other cooperative marketing societies were registered on 16.9.2011 and 17.9.2011 in the market area. That was made the subject-matter of another writ petition, being SCA No.1387 of 2011. On the other hand, Chairman of KAPMC and petitioner in SCA No.9704 of 2011 filed Misc. Civil Application No.2403 of 2011 before this Court seeking initiation of action under the Contempt of Courts Act for non-compliance of the order dated 30.8.2011. Then, respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 on 19.9.2011 to publish election programme on 24.9.2011. Respondent No.2 also made a statement before this Court in the contempt proceedings that the newly registered societies would not be permitted to be included in the voters' list. 2.4 On the other hand, one Haripar Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. (applicant in Civil Application No.12740 of 2011 herein, seeking to be joined as respondent No.5) approached the Apex Court by way of SLP (Civil) No.15526 of 2011 and the Supreme Court dismissed that petition on 15.9.2011 with the order as under: “ORDER Taken on Board. Permission to file SLP is granted. The special leave petition is directed against judgment dated August 30, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.9704 of 2011. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr.P.S.Patwalia, the learned senior counsel for respondent No.1, states at the Bar that the directions given in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment are in the context of voters for election. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr.P.S.Patwalia, the learned senior counsel for respondent No.1, states at the Bar that the directions given in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment are in the context of voters for election. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence, the special leave petition fails and is dismissed.” The direction given in paragraph 2 of the judgment dated 30.8.2011, which was approved by the Apex Court, read as under: “2. We, therefore, without entering into merits of the case, direct the respondents to hold the elections of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kalavad, District Jamnagar, within a period of three months from today. The interest of justice also demands to direct the administrator appointed by the State Government that the administrator shall not enroll any new member nor shall send any information to the authorities against any member and, if he sends any information, the same shall not be acted upon.” 3. With the above backdrop of facts and proceedings, the petitioners appeared before respondent No.2 pursuant to the show cause notice issued under section 27 (4) of the Act, and the impugned orders dated 3.10.2011 were made so as to order cancellation of licences of the petitioner for the year 2011-2012, effectively ousting names of the members of managing committees of petitioners from the list of voters, on the eve of publication of preliminary list of voters. The date fixed for publication of preliminary list of voters was 05.10.2011. The petitioners sought to challenge those orders dated 3.10.2011, communicated on 4.10.2011, but the petition, being SCA No.1580 of 2011, was withdrawn on 11.10.2011. Another set of petitions, being SCA Nos.15434 of 2011, were also filed and withdrawn on 18.10.2011 with a view to preferring appeal within 48 hours. The petitioners' appeals No.487 to 493 of 2011 were taken up for hearing and order dated 04.11.2011 was made rejecting them mainly on the ground that the process of election for KAPMC was already underway and there is provision under Rule 28 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 for filing an election petition after the election. 4. The petitioners' appeals No.487 to 493 of 2011 were taken up for hearing and order dated 04.11.2011 was made rejecting them mainly on the ground that the process of election for KAPMC was already underway and there is provision under Rule 28 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 for filing an election petition after the election. 4. The present set of petitions challenges the impugned order dated 03.10.2011 of Director, the respondent No.2, and the order dated 04.11.2011 of Deputy Secretary (Appeal) rejecting the appeals as aforesaid. The prayers for staying operation of those orders and for directing respondent No.4 to include the names of members of the Managing Committees of the petitioner societies in the voters' list of cooperative marketing societies have not been pressed on account of the fact that election to KAPMC was underway and the petitions could not be heard before the final list of voters was prepared and published. 5. The first impugned orders dated 03.10.2011 were made pursuant to the show cause notices issued on 23.3.2011 wherein it was expressly stated that Shri Haripar Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. had made a complaint dated 03.02.2011 about issuance of bogus election-oriented licences by KAPMC and, pursuant thereto, Registrar of Co-operative Societies was directed to enquire and an enquiry was also held under section 44 of the Act through the Director of Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance. On that basis, notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why their licences should not be cancelled under section 27 (4) of the Act. After such show cause notices, the impugned orders dated 03.10.2011 were made. It was contended before the Director, inter alia, that the allegations made against them were not proved, that the proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction and the year 2010-2011 in respect of which the show cause notices were issued was over. However, it was held by the impugned orders that the documents and evidence produced by the petitioner in respect of their activities of marketing and paying cess and fees were not reliable and the liecences issued to the petitioner appeared to be election-oriented. The appeals preferred from such orders were dismissed on 04.11.2011 as aforesaid, practically without deciding the issue of legality of the orders of Director. 6. The appeals preferred from such orders were dismissed on 04.11.2011 as aforesaid, practically without deciding the issue of legality of the orders of Director. 6. Learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned orders dated 03.10.2011 were, ex-facie, perverse, illegal, male fide and without jurisdiction. He submitted that, in fact, the proceedings held by the respondents were partisan and election-oriented. He submitted that in these cases the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners mainly on the ground that they had not paid market fees, while the petitioners had placed on record evidence of payment of such fees since 2007-08. The petitioners had also in fact undertaken trading activities during the preceding three years. The chronology of events has clearly established that the authorities never wanted to hold election before the voters' list could be manipulated after appointment of an administrator. The order dated 30.8.2011 in SCA No.9704 of 2011 was made by this Court in that context and the order dated 15.9.2011 of the Apex Court also ought to be read in that context, according to the submission. Relying upon judgment of this Court in Shrutbandhu H.Popat v. State of Gujarat [ 2008 (1) G.L.H. 575 ], it was submitted that, even assuming the allegation of non-payment of market fees to be correct, the traders or such voters could not be restrained from being included in the voters' list on the ground of non-payment of market fees. He also submitted that the petitioners had a statutory right of representation in KAPMC, which has been infringed by the impugned orders. The Market Committee constituted without representation of important constituents would also be illegal, according to the submission. 7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader Mr.P.K.Jani, appearing for the respondents, submitted that even as the process of election has started with the declaration of election programme and concluding with counting of votes and declaration of result on 20.12.2011, it cannot now legally be interfered with. He further submitted that a whole class of voters being not available for voting in a particular constituency may not vitiate the election insofar as, under the provisions of section 11 (2) (a) of the Act, the State Government is empowered to nominate members of respective class from amongst the persons qualified to be elected as members of the respective class. 8. 8. According to the scheme of the Act, a market committee, which shall be deemed to be a local authority, has to be constituted under section 11, with eight agriculturists elected by members of managing committees of co-operative societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area, four members from the traders holding general licences, two representatives of co-operative marketing societies holding general licences, one member to be nominated by the local authority, other than the market committee, and two members to be nominated by the State Government. Thus, the class of co-operative marketing societies situated in the market area and holding general licences get representation of two members in the APMC who have to be elected from amongst its members by the members of managing committees of such societies, which forms a separate constituency. The only requirement of section 11 (1) (iii) is that the co-operative marketing society must be situated in the market area and must be holding general licence. The provisions for election of market committee are found in Part III and Rules 5 to 30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (for short, “the Rules”). Rule 5 requires preparation of a separate list of voters under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act, consisting of members of managing committees of co-operative marketing societies situated in the market area and holding general licences. Under Rule 6, a person whose name is entered in a list of voters is qualified to vote unless he has ceased to hold the capacity in which his name was entered in such list. The lists of voters have to be prepared under Rule 7 which, inter alia, requires that every co-operative society shall communicate the full names of the members of its managing committee together with the place of residence to the authorized officer before such date as the Director may fix; provided that the date to be so fixed shall not be later than sixty days before the date of general election. Then the authorized officer has to, within seven days from the date fixed, cause to be prepared the lists of voters as required by Rule 5 on the basis of the information received under sub-rule (1), if necessary, after making such inquiry as he may deem fit. Then the authorized officer has to, within seven days from the date fixed, cause to be prepared the lists of voters as required by Rule 5 on the basis of the information received under sub-rule (1), if necessary, after making such inquiry as he may deem fit. Apparently, in the facts of the present cases, before the due date for preparation of voters' list, the State authorities had initiated proceedings under section 46 of the Act for supersession of KAPMC on the one hand and, under section 27 of the Act on the other hand, with the common charge of illegal grant or renewal of general licences. Pursuant to those proceedings, the respondents have, by now, already appointed an administrator in the KAPMC and effectively kept the petitioners out of the voters' list, mainly on the basis that the elections were already underway. 9. In the above facts, the petitions could be pressed only with the objective of quashing the impugned orders so as to restore the petitioners' licences and reassert their right to carry on their marketing activities. Since all the impugned orders are made pursuant to the proceedings under section 27 of the Act, its relevant parts may be reproduced as under: “27 Licences, their issue, renewal, suspension or cancellation etc. and appeals against refusal, suspension etc. of licence: (1) .... .... .... (2) .... .... .... (3) A market committee may, for reasons to be recorded in writing suspend or cancel licence, - (i) if the licence has been obtained through willful misrepresentation or fraud, or (ii) if the holder thereof or his servant or any person acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission, commits a breach of any of the terms, conditions, or restrictions imposed by the licence, or (iii) if the holder of the licence has been adjudged an insolvent and has not obtained his discharge, or (iv) if the holder of the licence is convicted of any offence under this Act; Provided that no licence shall be suspended or cancelled unless the holder thereof has been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such suspension or cancellation. (4) If in respect of any holder of a licence, it appears to the Director that on any ground specified in sub-section (3) an action under that sub-section by the market committee was necessary but that the market committee has not taken any such action, the Director may, on any such ground and for reason to be recorded in writing and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the holder of the licence to be heard, by order suspend or cancel any licence granted or renewed under this section. (5) Any person aggrieved by an order refusing to grant or renew a licence or suspending any lilcence may, appeal within thirty days from the date of the communication of the order to him- (i) to the Director, if such order has been made by a market committee, and (ii) to the State Government, if such order has been made by the Director. (6) The Director or as the case may be, the State Government after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, shall on such appeal make such order as is deemed just and proper. “ 10. It is clear from bare perusal of the above provisions that the market committee itself is authorized to suspend or cancel a licence only on the four grounds mentioned in section 27 (3) of the Act. If it appears to the Director that it was necessary for the market committee to take any action under sub-section (3) and the market committee had not taken any such action, the Director may by order suspend or cancel any licence. However, the grounds on which the Director may exercise his powers are restricted to the grounds enumerated in section 27 (3) of the Act. 10.1 In the facts of the present cases, the proceedings under section 27 were expressly initiated at the instance of an interested co-operative society when elections for KAPMC were due. The Director has assumed the jurisdiction and exercised his powers without anywhere clearly recording his opinion as to whether and why the market committee itself was required to take action under section 27 (3) of the Act. Instead, an independent inquiry under section 44 was initiated and report dated 07.03.2011 thereof recommending cancellation of licences under section 27 (4) has been received by the Director. Instead, an independent inquiry under section 44 was initiated and report dated 07.03.2011 thereof recommending cancellation of licences under section 27 (4) has been received by the Director. While issuing show cause notice dated 15.3.2011 to KAPMC, Deputy Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation Department of the State Government, has, inter alia, alleged that nine marketing societies, including the petitioners, have not paid market fees or lately paid negligible fees, due to which the Director is already directed to cancel the licences under section 27 (4) and necessary proceedings are separately undertaken under the office of Deputy Secretary. Thus, mainly on the assumption and express ground that the petitioners were holding licences only with a view to participating in the elections, proceedings under section 27 (4) were initiated and undertaken without any reference to the grounds mentioned in section 27 (3) of the Act. In co-ordination with the proceeding under section 46, show cause notices dated 23.3.2011 have been issued to the petitioners, again only alleging NIL or negligible payment of market fees and without any reference to any ground mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 27. These facts directly lend credence and substance to the grievance of the petitioners that the proceeding for cancellation of licences were initiated with a pre-determined intent and in violation of the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 27 of the Act. It also stands proved that any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (3) having not been mentioned in the show cause notices or the impugned orders, the proceedings were held without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It has to be noted that, although the main ground of payment of NIL or negligible market fees by the petitioner is mentioned in the show cause notices and the impugned orders, its relevance or relation to any of the statutory grounds is nowhere mentioned or adjudicated during the proceeding, in spite of that objection having been specifically raised by the petitioners. Thus, the only ground which has appealed to the authorities and which is held in the impugned orders to have been established is repeatedly stated to be that the licences were issued or renewed for election purpose and hence required to be cancelled. Thus, the only ground which has appealed to the authorities and which is held in the impugned orders to have been established is repeatedly stated to be that the licences were issued or renewed for election purpose and hence required to be cancelled. Even the objection of the petitioners that the show cause notices under section 27 (4) were in respect of the transactions carried out by the petitioners during the preceding three years, i.e. 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, and could not relate to the current year, i.e. 2010-2011, has been disregarded in the impugned orders. 11. Therefore, without entering into the factual controversies arising from the claim of the petitioners that their business under the licences was in fact carried on and market fees were paid during the period of three consecutive preceding years, it is clear that the impugned orders were illegal, without jurisdiction and far from bone fide. 12. The impugned order dated 04.11.2011 stands on a far worse footing, insofar as the Deputy Secretary (Appeal) has not only not dealt with the essential legal issues raised by the petitioners, but practically abdicated his power and responsibility of making a just and proper order merely on the basis that the petitioners had the alternative remedy of challenging the election in an application under Rule 28 as the election process had already started. 13. In the facts and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, the petitions are required to be allowed with cost in view of the apparently and consciously illegal exercise of powers by the respondents at a considerable cost to the petitioners. It also needs to be observed that such series of election-oriented orders, proceedings and litigations as have taken place in the facts of the present cases tend to consume considerable public time of the Court on urgent basis and result into relegation of other matters in which other parties may be suffering injustice or incarceration for years. 14. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed, impugned orders dated 03.10.2011 and 04.11.2011 are set aside, with cost quantified at Rs.5,000/- in each petition, which shall be paid to them by respondents No.1 and 2 within a period of one month. Rule in each of the petitions is made absolute accordingly. 14. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed, impugned orders dated 03.10.2011 and 04.11.2011 are set aside, with cost quantified at Rs.5,000/- in each petition, which shall be paid to them by respondents No.1 and 2 within a period of one month. Rule in each of the petitions is made absolute accordingly. The civil applications praying for an opportunity of hearing by joining the original objector and complainant, namely, Haripar Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd., are disposed without any separate order on account of the fact that their learned advocate is allowed to intervene as interested parties and his submission in support of the respondents are duly considered.