JUDGMENT : JAYANT PATEL, J. 1. Rule. Ms.Manish Shah, learned GP appearing for the respondent no.1State and its authorities and Mr.Anshin Desai learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. With the consent of parties, the petitions are finally heard. 2. In both petitions, common questions arise for consideration as to whether the societies whose names were already included in the voters’ list could be said as defunct society by the authorised officer and thereby to exclude the name from the voters’ list or not. 3. We may record that for the election programme and various stages of the election programme, there is no dispute. It is also undisputed position that the petitioners-society and members of the Managing Committee were included in the provisional voters’ list. However, the objections were filed against the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioners-society by the private respondents on the ground that they were not required to be included in the voters’ list and their names are required to be excluded in the voters’ list. The authorised officer has given opportunity of hearing before considering the objection and in the written submission made on behalf of the respective petitioner-society, details were given on 05.05.2015, which included inter alia (1) deposits from different persons were received by the society; (2) the society had given loan to its members; (3) society had purchased the fertilizers and had supplied fertilizer to its different members; (4) in the year 201314 and even in the year 201415, the society had again purchased fertilizer from Taluka Sangh and they were supplied to its members; (5) recoveries were made by the society and loans were also given by the society to its various members. Transaction of loans were by cheques. 4. On 22.02.2015, in respect of the transaction of loan, the revenue entries were also mutated in the revenue records. 5. Inspite of the aforesaid situation, the authorised officer has taken view that the society could not be said to be rendering agricultural credit because as per him, the transactions were not genuine for giving of loan and, therefore, he passed impugned order for excluding the name of the petitioner-society and its members of the Managing Committee from the voters’ list. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 6. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 6. We have heard Mr.Dipen Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms.Shah, learned GP for the State and its authorities and Mr.Anshin Desai for the private respondents. 7. If the facts of the present case are considered, we are of the view that the petitions are covered by two decisions of this Court; one is by this Court (Coram : Jayanti Patel & Mohinder Pal, JJ. (one of use was already party to the said decision)) in Special Civil Application No.1378/2013 in case of Varsada Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. decided on 13.12.2013 and another is by coordinate bench of this Court (Coram : M.R. Shah & G.B. Shah, JJ.) in Special Civil Application No.1199/2015 in case of Nilpur Colony Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. decided on 22.01.2015. 8. We may record that in the decision of this Court in case of Varsada Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Ltd. (supra), this Court at paragraph nos. 3 to 11 observed thus, “3. On the aspect of facts, there is no dispute of the election programme declared, the exclusion of the name of the petitioner society in the provisional voters list and the decision of the authorised officer to exclude the name of the petitioner society/members of the managing committee of the petitioner society from the voters list. Therefore, no much discussion is required on the said aspects. 4. The only contention to be considered in the present petition is whether the society who has undertaken its activity and the business during the period of earlier three years could be said as dispensing agricultural credit if it has not given loan to any person but it has undertaken recovery proceedings and has recovered the amount of loan granted earlier. 5. It is an admitted position that the authorised officer has also found that the recovery is made of the earlier loans but the agricultural loans have not been granted by the petitioner society. Therefore, on the said ground, the authorisied officer has found by the impugned order that the petitioner society could not be said as dispensing agricultural credit and therefore, the name is excluded from the voters list. 6. In our view, the same is not correct reading to the requirement of the law. Therefore, on the said ground, the authorisied officer has found by the impugned order that the petitioner society could not be said as dispensing agricultural credit and therefore, the name is excluded from the voters list. 6. In our view, the same is not correct reading to the requirement of the law. Section 11(1)(i) of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which is relevant for the purpose of this Court reads as under: "11. Constitution of market committee,(1) Every market committee shall consist of the following members, namely : (i) eight agriculturists who shall be elected by members of managing committees of cooperative societies (other than cooperative marketing societies) and milk produce cooperative societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area; 7. The aforesaid shows that the society should be such which is dispensing agricultural credit in the market area. It is not in dispute that the society is not a credit society nor it is in dispute that the members of the managing committee of the petitioner society are not duly elected members of the managing committee. The only aspect canvassed was that since it has not given loans to any of the persons during the respective period, it could not be termed as dispensing agricultural credit in the market area even if it has made recovery during the respective period of the loans granted earlier. 8. It deserves to be recorded that when any society is described as dispensing agricultural credit in the market area would mean that it should be dispensing agricultural credit. Dispensation of the agricultural credit or functioning as an agricultural credit society does not mean that there should be the transaction of loan only otherwise it will cease to be dispensing agricultural credit. Dispensing credit in our view would include the action of recovering the loans already granted. Credit would include recovery then only the banking business of such society of rendering credit could be said as complete. It is not a matter where credits are to be granted or loans are to be granted but not to be recovered in future. Any person engaged in the business of banking or granting of loan or rendering credit would essentially be required to undertake two tasks; one would be granting of loan and another would be recovery of the loan with the accrued interest. Any person engaged in the business of banking or granting of loan or rendering credit would essentially be required to undertake two tasks; one would be granting of loan and another would be recovery of the loan with the accrued interest. Therefore, both are the basic limbs which could be considered for the word dispensing agricultural credit. If none of the limbs are existent, one could say that the society is defunct, but in a case where one of the limbs is available and the activities are rendered for such purpose, unless found to be bogus or by way of eye wash it is not possible for us to accept the contention that such aspect could not be termed as dispensing agricultural credit in view of the wider meaning to be considered for giving effect to the word dispensing agricultural credit. It is hardly required to be stated that essential purpose of the legislature is to keep away the defunct society in the participation of the election or a mushroom created society, not functioning at all. The petitioner society, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner was registered as back as on 1954. Therefore, the creation of the society or the formation of the society is not a recent one just to play role in the ensuing election in the nearby period. Under the circumstances, when the society is functioning for a long period and it has advanced loan in past and has continued its activity for recovery of the loan and actually realised the loan to a substantial extent, which is also found by the authorised officer, it cannot be said that the authorised officer was justified in excluding the name of the office bearers of the petitioner society. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the authorised officer which is impugned in the present petition cannot be sustained and the members of the managing committee of the petitioner society are required to be continued in the voters list which is to be finalised tomorrow, i.e., on 14.02.2013. 10. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the authorised officer which is impugned in the present petition cannot be sustained and the members of the managing committee of the petitioner society are required to be continued in the voters list which is to be finalised tomorrow, i.e., on 14.02.2013. 10. Before parting with, we may add that since the election is not disturbed by this Court, it would be well within its power to interfere with the election process for preparation of the voters list and finalisation thereof, and similar powers were exercised by this Court in Juni Jithardi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat decided on 14.07.2009. It is true that in the said decision, it had come on record that the society had rendered credit for fertilizer to its farmers and therefore, Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the private parties had made an attempt to distinguish the said judgment. In our view, if the interference is to be made without disturbing the election process, such is permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution and further, if the word dispensing agricultural credit would include recovery of the loans already granted, name could not be excluded by the authorised officer. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the impugned decision of the authorised officer is quashed and set aside with the direction that the names of the members of the managing committee of the petitioner society who were already in the provisional voters list shall continue to remain in the final list which is to be published tomorrow.” 9. When once again the matter came up for consideration before another coordinate bench of this Court in case of Nilpur Colony Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. (supra), similar question arose as to whether if the society has only recovered the earlier loans and has not actually given loan during the earlier period, could the society be said to be as defunct so as to attract exclusion of the names from the voters’ list or not. In the said decision, this Court at paragraph nos.7 to 8 observed thus, “7. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. In the said decision, this Court at paragraph nos.7 to 8 observed thus, “7. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned order the authorised officer has excluded the names of the Members of the Managing Committee of the Petitioner-society from the provisional voters list of agricultural constituency solely on the ground that after 2011 there is no new transaction of credit and, therefore, the petitioner-Society cannot be said to be dispensing with the agricultural credit. However, it is required to be noted and even from the documents produced by the petitioner-Society it appears that there are transactions of recovery of credit granted earlier and, therefore, the short question, which is posed for consideration of this Court is, whether in a case where there is no transaction of credit but there are transactions of recovery of credit can the petitioner-Society be considered as dispensing with the agricultural credit? 7.1. Identical question came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Varsada Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Ltd. (Supra) and dealing with the similar question / issue in paragraph 8 it is observed and held as under; “It deserves to be recorded that when any society is described as dispensing agricultural credit in the market area would mean that it should be dispensing agricultural credit. Dispensation of the agricultural credit or functioning as an agricultural credit society does not mean that there should be the transaction of loan only otherwise it will cease to be dispensing agricultural credit. Dispensing credit in our view would include the action of recovering the loans already granted. Credit would include recovery then only the banking business of such society of rendering credit could be said as complete. It is not a matter where credits are to be granted or loans are to be granted but not to be recovered in future. Any person engaged in the business of banking or granting of loan or rendering credit would essentially be required to undertake two tasks; one would be granting of loan and another would be recovery of the loan with the accrued interest. Therefore, both are the basic limbs which could be considered for the word dispensing agricultural credit. Any person engaged in the business of banking or granting of loan or rendering credit would essentially be required to undertake two tasks; one would be granting of loan and another would be recovery of the loan with the accrued interest. Therefore, both are the basic limbs which could be considered for the word dispensing agricultural credit. If none of the limbs are existent, one could say that the society is defunct, but in a case where one of the limbs is available and the activities are rendered for such purpose, unless found to be bogus or by way of eye wash it is not possible for us to accept the contention that such aspect could not be termed as dispensing agricultural credit in view of the wider meaning to be considered for giving effect to the word dispensing agricultural credit. It is hardly required to be stated that essential purpose of the legislature is to keep away the defunct society in the participation of the election or a mushroom created society, not functioning at all. ” 7.2. Considering the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court and considering the fact that the petitioner-Society has been registered since many years and it is found that there are transactions of recovery of credit / loan granted, the petitioner-Society can be said to be dispensing with the agricultural credit and it does not cease to be the Society dispensing with the agricultural credit. Under the circumstances, the names of the Members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-Society were required to be included in the provisional voters list and consequently in the final voters list. 8. In view of the above, the impugned decision of the authorised officer excluding the names of the Members of the Managing Director of the petitioner-society from the provisional voters list from the agricultural constituency cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be set aside.” 10. Not only similar are the facts situation in the present case so far as the recovery made by the society from its members during earlier year but the same is couple with the aspect that the agriculture fertilizer for the last two preceding years were purchased by the society and they are sold to its members and further that the agricultural advances are also made in the preceding years together with the recovery made by the society. 11. 11. Attempt was made by learned GP to contend that the authorised officer had found the transaction as not genuine and since the certificate deposits were taken from the relatives of the office bearers of the society and the loans were advanced, the order passed by the authorised officer could not be said to be illegal. 12. Firstly the authorised officer has not at all considered the aspects of recovery made by the society nor has considered the aspects of purchase of agriculture fertilizer by the society for its members and distribution thereof to its members. The aspect of recovery being made by the society and consequently the society would have right to be included in the voters’ list and thereby cannot be said to be defunct society as observed by us, is already covered by two decisions of this Court. However even if the aspect of loan transaction and giving certificate to the member is kept aside, it would not nullify the performance of the society for the recovery for the loan already advanced earlier and further purchasing of agriculture fertilizer and supplying the same to its agriculturist members. 13. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the impugned order passed by the authorised officer deserves to be quashed and set aside and, hence, same quashed and set aside. 14. Further as observed by this Court in above referred decision in Special Civil Application No.1378/2013 and more particularly paragraph no.8, without disturbing the election, if the interference is not made, rights of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioners-society would be lost for all the time to come and such being peculiar circumstances and the order of the authorised officer being beyond his power and without jurisdiction and void, the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained and relief as was granted by this Court in above referred matter, deserve to be granted. 15. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the impugned order passed by the authorised officer for excluding the name of the petitioner-society and its members of the Managing Committee is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the name of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-society shall stand restored in the voters’ list and they would be entitled to participate at the ensuing election of the Marketing Committee in accordance with law. Consequently, the name of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-society shall stand restored in the voters’ list and they would be entitled to participate at the ensuing election of the Marketing Committee in accordance with law. The petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. 16. Learned GP shall convey the order to the authorised officer.