JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is permitted to join the Director Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gandhinagar as party respondent No.8. The petitioners to carry out the amendment in the title clause of the petition. 2. Petitioners Elected Members of respondent No.1 Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sinor, have called in question the election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman declared on 12.08.2013 and sought direction for holding fresh election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Market Committee in presence of all elected members. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that General Election to constitute the Market Committee was held on 20.06.2013 and result was declared on 21.06.2013. The petitioner No.1 got elected from Agricultural Constituency and the petitioner No.2 was elected from Cooperative Marketing Society Constituency. The Director of Agricultural Market and Rural Finance then issued notification on 15.07.2013 under Rule 27 of Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1968 ('the Rules' for short) for publicizing the names of the elected candidates in the gazzate, for the purpose of election of Chairman and Vice Chairman the Election Officer and District Registrar the respondent No.2, issued agenda notice on 01.08.2013 for holding meeting on 12.08.2013 at 12 noon as per Rule 31 of Rules. The petitioners have further averred that after the above said agenda notice was issued, the Circle Police Inspector, Karjan Police Station respondent No.3 issued summons under Section 160 of Criminal Procedure Code to the respondent No.6 and 7 (the elected members of the Market Committee) on 08.08.2013, asking them to remain present on 12.08.2013 at 10:00 A.M. in his office for recording their statements in connection with the offenses registered under C.R.No.I192 of 2009. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents No.6 and 7 to whom the above said summons were issued since suspected of misuse of the powers by the police officers, made application dated 11.08.2013 to the DSP, Vadodara District, requesting to ensure that they could remain present in the meeting on 12.08.2013. However, on 12.08.2013, the respondents No.6 and 7 were arrested by police from the Committee room meeting of the Market Committee at about 11:45 A.M. with clear intention to see that respondents No.6 and 7 could not participate in the election, which was to take place at 12 noon. However, on 12.08.2013, the respondents No.6 and 7 were arrested by police from the Committee room meeting of the Market Committee at about 11:45 A.M. with clear intention to see that respondents No.6 and 7 could not participate in the election, which was to take place at 12 noon. The petitioners have further averred that the petitioners and other members objected to hold of meeting for the purpose of election of Chairman and Vice Chairman, however, the respondent No.2the Election Officer proceeded with the election and declared the respondents No.4 and 5 elected as Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively. It is specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners were to contest the election for Chairman and Vice Chairman and the respondents No.6 and 7, who were arrested by the police were the supporters of the petitioners and with their help their strength would be of 9 members out of total 17 members of the Market Committee and therefore, just to reduce the panel of the petitioners to Minority, respondents No.6 and 7 were arrested just before 15 minutes of the scheduled time of election. 4. This petition is opposed by affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 stating that the petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy under Section 48 of the Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short) and there are no allegations against the Market Committee and therefore the Market Committee is wrongly implemented as party. The respondent No.3the Circle Police Inspector has also filed affidavit, pointing out the facts leading to the arrest of respondents No.6 and 7. The respondents No.4 and 5 have also filed affidavit in reply, stating that since, the petitioners have participated in the elections, the petitioners are estopped from challenging their election. It is also stated that the respondents No.6 and 7 cannot be said to be supporters of only the petitioners, and that the respondent No.2Election Officer has not committed any error in holding the elections. 5. Before proceeding to deal with the merits of the matter, the Court deems it proper to record following facts. 6. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court vide order dated 26.08.2013 when learned advocate Mr.B.S. Patel then appearing only for respondent No.1 Market Committee, while requesting for time to file affidavit, stated that till the next date of hearing, the Market Committee shall not hold any meeting. 6. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court vide order dated 26.08.2013 when learned advocate Mr.B.S. Patel then appearing only for respondent No.1 Market Committee, while requesting for time to file affidavit, stated that till the next date of hearing, the Market Committee shall not hold any meeting. Such statement was then continued by learned advocate Mr. Patel from time to time. On 17.09.2013, learned advocate Mr.Kamal Sojitra appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 since requested for time, the matter was adjourned to 23.09.2013. On 23.09.2013, the Court made following order. “Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Neeraj Ashar when confronted with the contents of the FIR at page 81 with summons issued under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at page 25, requested to grant him some time to file further affidavit. Hence, at the request of Mr. Ashar, S.O. to 30th September 2013. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel states that the statement which he made earlier shall continue till then.” 7. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time to enable learned advocates appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 and learned AGP to file reply. 8. On 24.10.2013, hearing of the petition had taken place to some extent. However, at the request of learned AGP Mr.Ashar, the matter was kept on 25.10.2013. 9. On 25.10.2013, learned Government Pleader Shri Prakash Jani appeared with learned AGP Mr.Niraj Ashar and fairly stated before the Court that in the nature of allegations, the Government has decided to recall the election took place on 12.08.2013. Mr.Jani, tendered the affidavit affirmed by Mr.Yasmin Allarakkha Baloch, the Director, Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gujarat, wherein it is stated that looking to the allegations and counter allegations made in the present proceedings, the State Government would like to reconsider the entire issue and that the State Authorities would like to recall entire election process took place on 12.08.2013. On that very day, learned advocate Mr.B.S.Patel also made a statement that he had received instructions from respondent No.4 that the respondents No.4 and 5 shall resign from the office of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Market Committee. 10. The order dated 25.10.2013, recording the above statement of learned advocate Mr.B.S.Patel and for adjourning the matter to enable Mr.Patel to put above stated instructions in writing before the Court reads thus: “Learned advocate Mr. 10. The order dated 25.10.2013, recording the above statement of learned advocate Mr.B.S.Patel and for adjourning the matter to enable Mr.Patel to put above stated instructions in writing before the Court reads thus: “Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel appearing for respondent No.1 Market Committee as also with learned advocate Mr. Kamal Sojitra for respondent Nos.4 and 5, states that he has received instruction from respondent No.4 that respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall resign from the office of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Market Committee. Mr.Patel further states that since he would like to put such instruction in writing before the Court, the matter may be adjourned to 11th November 2013. Hence, S.O. to 11th November 2013.” 11. It appears that thereafter with the change of business of the Courts, the respondents No.4 and 5 also changed their mind and did not adhere to the instructions given to their advocate Shri B.S.Patel and wanted to engage another lawyer. The request made by them for change of the lawyer is found recorded in the order dated 21.11.2013 (Coram:Hon'ble A.J.Desai, J) , which is reproduced below: “Mr.B.S.Patel, learned advocate appearing for Mr.Kamal M. Sojitra, learned advocate for respondent nos.4 and 5, states that respondent nos.4 and 5, who are present in the Court, want to engage another lawyer. He requests for time. S.O. to 3rd December, 2013. The respondent nos.4 and 5, who are present in the Court are informed to engage another lawyer before the next date of hearing.” 12. Now on account of change in the business of the Courts, the matter has again appeared before this Court. Learned advocate Shri Shirish Joshi appeared for respondents No.4 and 5. The Court brought to his notice the above facts recorded and asked whether he would like to argue on the merits of the case. Mr.Joshi then took time to take instructions from respondents No.4 and 5. The matter was then adjourned for two to three occasions and was lastly listed for hearing on 26.02.2014. On that day, learned advocate Mr.Baiju Joshi appeared before the Court and stated that he would argue for respondent No.4 and 5. Mr.Joshi then took time to take instructions from respondents No.4 and 5. The matter was then adjourned for two to three occasions and was lastly listed for hearing on 26.02.2014. On that day, learned advocate Mr.Baiju Joshi appeared before the Court and stated that he would argue for respondent No.4 and 5. Learned advocate Mr.B.S.Patel also appeared, stated before the Court that he was appearing for the respondent No.1 Market Committee only and since, no relief is prayed against the Market Committee, he did not intend to make any arguments on merits and Market Committee would abide by the order which may be passed by this Court. The Court therefore heard learned advocate Mr.Dilip Rana for the petitioners, Mr.Baiju Joshi for respondents No.4 and 5, learned AGP Mr.Niraj Ashar for respondents No.2 and 3 and Mr.P.Y. Divyeshvar for respondents No.6 and 7. 13. Learned advocate Mr.Dilip Rana for the petitioners submitted that the record of the case clearly reveals the intention of the opposite group and the police officers to prevent the respondents No.6 and 7 from participating in the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman in the meeting held on 12.08.2013. Mr.Rana submitted that on 12.08.2013, when the meeting was about to commence, the police officers entered into the committee room and removed the respondents No.6 and 7 from the committee room to prevent them from participating in the meeting. Mr.Rana submitted that the respondent No.3 has tried to explain in his affidavit as to why respondents No.6 and 7 were taken into custody of the police. However, the reasons given out for arresting the respondents No.6 and 7 are falsified by the FIR lodged on 12.08.2013, itself by Police Sub Inspector Shri H.M.Dodia, who clearly stated in FIR being C.R. No. 138 of 2013 that the respondents No.6 and 7 were part of Mob of 30 to 40 persons and since, they were illegally and unauthorizedly trying to enter the committee room with intention not to permit holding of election, the respondents No.6 and 7 and other persons were being removed from the place and during that process he received instructions from the respondent No.3 to make arrest of the respondents No.6 and 7 in connection with the C.R.No.I192 of 2009. Mr.Rana submitted that in respect of above said offense of 2009, the respondent No.3 had issued witness summons under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code to respondent No.6 and 7 record their statements on 12.08.2013 at 10 O'Clock and there was no question of making their arrest. Mr.Rana submitted that on 12.08.2013, the respondent No.3 took the respondents No.6 and 7 in his custody before about 15 minutes of the scheduled time of election and kept them in his illegal custody till 5'O Clock and thereafter the arrest of the respondent No.6 and 7 were shown in connection with the offense of 2009. Mr.Rana submitted that such act on the part of the respondent No.3 was nothing but misuse of his powers with malafide intention to act in support of the other group of the persons to ensure that the respondents No.4 and 5 could get elected as Chairman and Vice Chairman in absence of respondent No.6 and 7. Mr.Rana submitted that immediately after the arrest of respondent No.6 and 7, the petitioners and other elected members of their group, submitted application to the respondent No.2Election Officer, before commencement of meeting, but unfortunately instead of postponing of meeting to a future date for enabling all elected members to participate in the meeting for electing Chairman and Vice Chairman, the respondent No.2 went ahead with the meeting and declared the respondent No.4 and 5 elected as Chairman and Vice Chairman by recording that both of them got 8 votes. Mr.Rana submitted that the respondent No.2 acted in defiance of the democratic principles for holding elections and in such act, the respondent No.3 intentionally added by arresting respondents No.6 and 7. Mr.Rana submitted that the facts in the present case are almost similar to the facts of the case of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel Versus Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel and others, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 200 , wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the view taken by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, whereby, the election of President and Vice President of the Municipality was set aside on the ground that two councilors were arrested just before starting of the meeting for election and the election held in absence of said two councilors, could not be said to be fair and free election. Mr.Rana thus, urged to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the election of respondents No.4 and 5 and to direct the respondent authorities to hold fresh elections of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the respondent No.1 Market Committee. 14. Learned advocate Mr.Divyeshvar, who has appeared for respondents No.6 and 7 has supported the case of the petitioners and submitted that the arrest of the respondent No.6 and 7 just before the commencement of the meeting on 12.08.2013 was to see that the respondent No.6 and 7 could not participate in the meeting on the said date and in their absence, the respondents No.4 and 5 could be elected as Chairman and Vice Chairman. Mr.Divyeshvar submitted that if the respondents No.6 and 7 were not removed and detained by the respondent No.3, they would have participated in the meeting and in that circumstances, the respondents No.4 and 5 could not have been elected as Chairman and Vice Chairman. He has also urged to grant relief prayed for in the petition. 15. Learned AGP Mr.Niraj Ashar submitted that the State Authorities would stand by the affidavit dated 24.10.2013 of the Director of Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance and would abide by the order which may be passed by this Court. 16. Learned advocate Mr.Baiju Joshi submitted that there are disputed questions of facts involved in the petition and therefore, this Court may not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Mr.Joshi submitted that there is alternative remedy available to the petitioners to call in question the election of the respondents No.4 and 5 by filing election petition before the State Government under Rule 31 of the Rules and therefore, this petition, challenging the election of the respondents No.4 and 5 may not be entertained. Mr.Joshi submitted that it is not that for no reason the arrest of the respondents No.6 and 7 was made on 12.08.2013. Mr.Joshi submitted that in connection with the offense of the year 2009, when further complaint was made by one Shri Ashwinbhai Ramanbhai Patel on 14.10.2011, the Police Officer had started further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code and as part of further investigation, the Police Officer had issued summons under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code to many persons including the respondents No.6 and 7. Mr.Joshi submitted that summons under Section 160 was issued to the respondents No.6 and 7 on 08.08.2013 asking them to remain present for recording their statement on 12.08.2013 at 10 O'clock, however, the respondent No.6 and 7 instead of remaining present before the respondent No.3, came with a mob of 30 to 40 persons at office of the Market Committee and tried to forcibly enter into the Market Committee room with an intention to see that the election could not take place on that very day. Mr.Joshi submitted that having come to know about such illegal act of the mob of 30 to 40 persons including the respondents No.6 and 7 and illegally entering into the committee room, the police officers immediately came to provide the police protection by removing the mob from the committee room and during that process when it was found that the respondents No.6 and 7 were leading the mob and were required by the respondent No.3 for recording their statement in connection with the offenses of 2009, they were taken to the office of the respondent No.3 where after the interrogation, they were ultimately arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate. Mr.Joshi submitted that since, such was the legal action taken by the police in connection with the offenses registered against the respondents No.6 and 7, the same could not be branded as a collusive act of the police with the respondents No.4 and 5 and it can also not be said that the respondent No.2the Election Officer had committed any illegality in proceedings to hold with the election with the remaining elected members. Mr.Joshi submitted that in such action of the respondent No.2 Election Officer, no illegality could be found and therefore, this Court may not interfere with ultimate decision taken by the respondent No.2 in declaring the respondents No.4 and 5 elected as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the respondent No.1Market Committee. He thus, urged to dismiss the petition. 18. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the record of the case it appears that there is no dispute about the fact that in the general election of Market Committee the petitioners as well as the respondents No.6 and 7 were elected and became entitled to contest the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman, and cast their votes in such election. There are in all 17 members of the Market Committee (14 elected members and 3 nominated members) who were entitled to participate in the meeting for election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman scheduled on 12.08.2013. The meeting for the above said purpose was to take place on 12 P.M. (noon). The respondent No.2 appointed as election officer issued agenda notice on 01.08.2013 for such meeting to the petitioners and respondent No.6 and 7 and other members specifying the date and time for holding the meeting as per Rule 31 of the Rules for electing Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee. 19. It is required to be noted that after the above agenda notice issued by the respondent No.2, the respondent No.3 issued witness summons under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the respondent No.6 and 7 on 08.08.2013, asking the respondents No.6 and 7 to remain present before him on 12.08.2013 at 10:00 A.M. for recording of their statements in connection with C.R. No.I192 of 2009, registered at Karjan Police Station. 20. As stated in the FIR being C.R.No.I38 of 2013, annexed with the affidavit in reply of the respondent No.3 the Circle Police Inspector at Annexure:V registered on 12.08.2013 with Sinor Police Station on the day when the election was to take place at 12 P.M., the respondent No.6 and 7 with other 7 persons named in the FIR and with mob of 30 to 40 persons were trying to enter the premises of the Committee, where the election was to take place at about 11:30 A.M. and since the police officers apprehended that there would be no fair and free election, they tried to keep them away from the place of election, however, persons in the mob misbehaved with the police officers and during this process, the respondent No.3 informed the complainant the police sub inspector of Karjan Police Station that the respondents No.6 and 7 were required to be arrested in connection with C.R. No.I192 of 2009 and therefore, while applying force against the .mob, the police arrested the respondents No.6 and 7, whereas, all other members of the mob ran away. 21. 21. On being specifically asked to learned AGP Shri Ashar about the time of arrest of the respondent No.6 and 7, learned AGP Mr.Ashar stated that the arrest of the respondent No.6 and 7 was made at the end of the day i.e. at 5:00 P.M. and in connection with C.R.No. 1192 of 2009. 22. Thus, from the above statement and the facts noted above, it appears that after the respondents No.6 and 7 were taken into custody by the police at about 11:45 A.M. on 12.08.2013, the respondents No.6 and 7 were just kept in confinement by the respondent No.3 till 5 O'clock for the purpose of recording their statements and thereafter they were arrested in connection with above referred offences of 2009. 23. It is required to be noted that out of 9 persons named in the FIR being C.R.No.I38 of 2013 and mob of 30 to 40 persons, only respondents No.6 and 7 were taken in custody by the police just before 10 to 15 minutes of the scheduled time of 12:00 PM for holding meeting for election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee. 24. The respondent No.2 Election Officer in his affidavit stated in para No.10 that as per the agenda issued by his office, he reached the election place i.e. the office of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee at around 11:50 A.M. on 12.08.2013. He has thus tried to project ignorance as regards the action of the police officers in detaining the respondent Nos.6 and 7. He has further stated that as per the agenda, he conveyed meeting and at the relevant point of time total 15 members including three members nominated by the government were present and since, required quorum was available to hold the meeting, he started the election process. He has, however, confirmed in his affidavit that before starting the election process, about 7 elected members raised objection before him to hold election and requested not to hold the meeting. The copy of the application/objection dated 12.08.2013 made by 7 members requesting to postpone election on the ground of arrest of respondent No.6 and is at Annexure:H with the petition. The copy of the application/objection dated 12.08.2013 made by 7 members requesting to postpone election on the ground of arrest of respondent No.6 and is at Annexure:H with the petition. However, as stated further in the affidavit since 8 other members raised objections against the postponement of the meeting and they were majority in members, respondent No.2 decided to continue the election process and declared the respondents No.4 and 5 elected as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee. 25. From what is stated by the respondent No.2 in his affidavit and as appears from the record of the case only 15 minutes before the scheduled time of the election, the respondents No.6 and 7 were detained by the police and kept them in confinement of the respondent No.3 till the respondents No.6 and 7 were shown arrested by the respondent No.3. It thus appears that respondent No.6 and 7 could not participate in the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman on 12.08.2013 on account of their arrest/confinement by police. If their absence would not have made any difference in ultimate result of the election, the game plan to keep the respondents No.6 and 7 out of election process would not have assumed any importance. However, since there are 17 members to participate in the election and since, in absence of the respondents No.6 and 7, the respondent No.4 and 5 were declared to have secured 8 votes and declared elected as Chairman and Vice Chairman, the absence of the respondents No.6 and 7 would assume great importance. It is in this circumstances, when 7 members of the committee requested to postpone the election, it was expected of the respondent No.2 Election Officer to postpone the election to future date especially when it was brought to his notice before the commencement of the election process that the respondents No.6 and 7 were arrested by the police just before the starting of the election. This Court is of the view that by not acceding to the request of 7 members to postpone the election on the ground that the respondent No.6 and 7 were detained by the police just before starting of the elections and to continue with the election process, at the instance of remaining 8 members of the committee was nothing but arbitrary, unreasonable action on the part of respondent No.2 and not in consonance with the democratic process for holding the elections. Therefore, the election of the respondent No.4 and 5 in the meeting dated 12.08.2013 in absence of the respondents No.6 and 7 as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee, cannot stand scrutiny of law and is required to be quashed and set aside. 26. In almost similar such facts and circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel (supra) held and observed in para No.23 as under: “23. There is no denying the fact that in the light of clear stipulation in subsection 4 of Section 32 of the Act, because of equality of votes the election result had to be decided by draw of lots and this is what the Presiding Officer did. But, the moot question is whether the detention of the two councillors was such a trivial factor in the subject election, which could be overlooked by the Presiding Officer? It is manifestly clear from the material on record that he was made aware of the said development. In the light of some of the circumstances, viz., (i) after arresting councillors Anilbhai Patel and Meenaben Gohil at around 12.30 P.M., just half an hour before the scheduled time for elections, the police officers did not produce them before the Magistrate immediately, but took them around Anand town in the police van and produced them before the Magistrate only at about 5.00 P.M., by which time the elections were already held and the results were also declared; (ii) no circumstance brought on record by the police to show that it would have been inexpedient to wait till the elections were over before effecting arrest of Anilbhai Patel and Meenaben Gohil. Both the councillors are residents of Anand and their co-accused in the respective offences were released by the police officers themselves after arresting them on 5.11.2005; and (iii) there was no circumstance to show that the two councillors would have escaped and avoided arrest if they were allowed to go inside the meeting hall for voting at 1.00 P.M. and if they were not arrested till the meeting for electing President and Vice-President was over. We have no hesitation in holding that the detention of the two councillors, a few minutes before the election meeting was a relevant factor which ought to have been taken into account by the Presiding Officer to decide whether to continue with the election or to postpone it and call the meeting on some other day in terms of Rule 10. Failure to do so not only offends against procedural propriety, it makes his decision to go ahead with the election meeting perverse and irrational, a facet of unreasonableness, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court has not committed any error of law and/or jurisdiction in setting aside the election of the appellant as President of the Anand Municipality.” 27. This Court has no hesitation in holding that on account of detaining respondents No.6 and 7 just before starting the election process on 12.08.2013, the entire election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee had vitiated. 28. Considering the facts of the case, the Court had taken up the matter for final disposal as agreed by all learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. However, now advocate Mr.Joshi, has raised objection against maintainability of petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Such objection stands overruled in view of the facts stated above. 29. From the facts recorded above, when the Court finds that the respondent No.2 acted in total defiance of procedural requirement of the democratic process of holding the election and in arbitrary and unreasonable manner, the Court would not relegate the petitioners to avail of alternative remedy. The Court is of the view that facts of the present case call for exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 30. In Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel's case (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para No.18 as under: “18. The Court is of the view that facts of the present case call for exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 30. In Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel's case (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para No.18 as under: “18. Having regard to it all, it is manifest that the power of judicial review may not be exercised unless the administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks the conscience of the court in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards but no standardised formula, universally applicable to all cases, can be evolved. Each case has to be considered on its own facts, depending upon the authority that exercises the power, the source, the nature or scope of power and the indelible effects it generates in the operation of law or affects the individual or society. Though judicial restraint, albeit self recognised, is the order of the day, yet an administrative decision or action which is based on wholly irrelevant considerations or material; or excludes from consideration the relevant material; or it is so absurd that no reasonable person could have arrived at it on the given material, may be struck down. In other words, when a Court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power, and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the Court to intervene. It is nevertheless, trite that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision making process and not the decision.” 31. For the reasons stated above and relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel (supra), the petition is required to be allowed and the election of respondents No.4 and 5 is required to be quashed and set aside and the respondent authorities are required to be directed to hold fresh elections. 32. However, the Court is of the view that in the facts of the case while allowing the petition, the respondent No.4 and 5 need to be saddled with heavy cost. 33. When Court had heard the petition in its earlier sittings, learned Government Pleader Shri Prakash Jani fairly stated that considering the nature of allegations made in the petition, the State Government .would like to recall the entire election process. 33. When Court had heard the petition in its earlier sittings, learned Government Pleader Shri Prakash Jani fairly stated that considering the nature of allegations made in the petition, the State Government .would like to recall the entire election process. However, the Court when pointed out that perhaps the State Government may find it difficult to recall the entire election process and it would be better if the Court set aside the election, at that stage learned advocate Shri B.S.Patel appearing for respondent No.1 Market Committee as also for respondents No.4 and 5, fairly stated that he had received instructions through SMS on his mobile from the respondent No.4 for resignation of respondents No.4 and 5 as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee and therefore, the Court might not be required to order setting aside the election and ordering for fresh election. Mr.Patel, however, stated that he would like to have such instructions in writing and for that purpose the matter was adjourned. Subsequently, on change in business of the Courts, what happened, has already been recorded in initial portion of this judgment. 34. In the background of the above facts, Court finds that only respondents No.4 and 5 and their group must have been interested to see that any how the respondents No.6 and 7 were detained by the police on the day of election so as to prevent them from .participating in the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman held on 12.08.2013. The above impression given to the Court get support and rather aggravated by the further conduct of the respondent No.6 and 7 of resiling from the their instructions given to their lawyer Shri B.S.Patel to convey to this Court that they were resigning from the office of Chairman and Vice Chairman. The Court is of the view that such conduct on the part of respondents No.4 and 5 cannot be countenanced. When it appears to the Court that the respondent No.4 and 5 are responsible for the litigation and they have not conducted properly, the Court finds that each of them needs to be imposed cost of Rs.15,000/-. 35. In the result, the petition is allowed. The election of respondents No.4 and 5 for the office of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the respondent No.1 Committee declared in the meeting of members of the committee held on 12.08.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. 35. In the result, the petition is allowed. The election of respondents No.4 and 5 for the office of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the respondent No.1 Committee declared in the meeting of members of the committee held on 12.08.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No.8the Director Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gandhinagar, is directed to immediately hold fresh election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of respondent No.1 Market Committee as .per Rule 31 of the Rules. It is made clear that for the fresh election to be held, the respondent No.8 shall not permit the same election officer who conducted meeting dated 12.08.2013. It will be open to respondent No.8 to appoint any other District Registrar or any competent officer to hold the election. 36. The respondents No.4 and 5 each are directed to deposit Rs.15,000/- with the respondent No.1 Market Committee as and by way of cost of the litigation within a period of two weeks from today. The compliance of the direction for the deposit of the aforesaid amount shall be reported to this Court by the Market Committee on expiry of the above time limit. After the aforesaid amount is deposited with the respondent No.1Market Committee, the Market Committee shall pay Rs.5000/to each of the petitioners from the said amount of cost deposited by the respondents No.4 and 5. The rest of the amount shall be retained by the Market Committee towards the expenses incurred by it. The petition stands allowed and disposed of at admission stage. Direct service is permitted. Copy of this judgment and order shall also be made available to learned AGP Mr.Niraj Ashar for its onward communication. In view of the disposal of the main petition, no order is required in Civil Application and hence, the same is disposed of. Petition allowed.