JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. (Oral) - Rule. Mr. Rakesh Patel learned AGP appears for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Pahwa appears for respondent No. 3 waives service of Rule and the matter is finally heard. 2. The petitioner by this petition is seeking appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order dated 07.07.2015 passed by respondent No. 1 at Annexure:A and it is also prayed by the petitioner to issue appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order dated 17.07.2015, Annexure-B whereby the objections raised by the petitioner was rejected and the petitioner has further prayed to direct the respondent No. 1 to hold the elections as per the approved bye laws of the respondent No. 3 Union. 3. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, it appears that the following positions are undisputed. (I). The bye-law No. 16.1.1 provides that the Managing Committee shall be comprising of 14 members to be elected from the President of the member of Cooperative Societies and it also provides that constituencies shall be per Taluka and one member shall be elected therefrom. It also provides that nobody will be entitled to cast more that one vote for one candidate. (II.) Initially, the respondent No. 3 society forwarded the proposal for the election of the members of the Managing Committee by forming constituency Talukawise for election of 14 members and one individual members from the delegates of the individual members. (III.) But, the District Registrar was not satisfied with the said proposal and the District Registrar called upon the Managing Director of the respondent No. 3 society to forward a fresh proposal by keeping equal number of proportion of voters on the basis of geographical location and then to form each constituency for each one city, total 14 cities. 4. The Managing Director of the respondent No. 3 society forward the proposal as per the instructions of the District Registrar, but the respondent No. 1 thereafter has not passed any formal order for delimitation of the society and published the very proposal received as submitted by the Managing Director of the respondent No. 3 society and started with the process of publication of the preliminary voters' list. 5. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 6. 5. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 6. We may record that as per Rule 3A(8) of the Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') where the area of operation of the society is more than one village, the number of constituency shall be equal to total number of seats excluding the reserved seats. In the present case also, there are 14 seats and therefore, the constituency has to be 14 which has already been provided as per bye-laws and for which there is no dispute. 7. As per Sub Rule 9 of Rule 3A of the aforesaid Rules, the delimitation of the constituency is to be made by the Collector prior to the publication of the list of voters. Therefore, the constituencies shall be as prescribed in the bye-laws, but within a particular constituency delimitation is to be made by the Collector. 8. At this stage, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Gujarat, wherein, the Apex Court at para No. 18 observed as thus: "18. Thus, when sub-rule (8) is read along with sub-rule (9) of Rule 3A, where the society has the area of operation exceeding one village, even if the bye-laws provide for single constituency, the seats provided by the bye-laws has to be equal to the number of constituency/constituencies and therefore, for each seat, a separate constituency would be required to be delimited and if not so delimited by the society of its own, it would be required for the rule (9) of Rule 3A of the Rules for the delimitation of the constituency in accordance with the mandate of sub-rule (8) of Rule 3A and thereafter, the process for publication of the voters' list is to be given effect to." (Emphasis Supplied) 9. It may also be recorded that similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 11431 of 2015 in case of Gandhinagar District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited and Anr. v. Returning Officer and Prant Officer - Gandhinagar and Anr., decided on 24.07.2015 and this Court has observed at Para Nos. 2 to 5 as under: "2. We have heard Mr. B.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. v. Returning Officer and Prant Officer - Gandhinagar and Anr., decided on 24.07.2015 and this Court has observed at Para Nos. 2 to 5 as under: "2. We have heard Mr. B.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGP appears for respondent No. 1 and 2. The principle contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the delimitation of the constituencies are not made as per the provisions of the bye-law No. 19.1.1A which provides for four separate constituencies for women and eight general constituencies. It was submitted by the learned AGP that at the relevant point of time, when the District Collector came to know that bye-law No. 19.1.1A has been stayed by the Registrar in the appeal preferred by one of the Member, Cooperative Societies through its President, the respondent No. 1 bona fide believed that the bye-law prevailing prior to the amendment would remain which may give power to the Collector to delimit the constituencies and therefore the power was exercised for delimitation of the constituency and the delimitation of the constituencies is made in a manner that as far as possible as per geographical location, and proportion of number of voters is maintained in the respective constituencies. 3. However, the learned AGP Mr. Rakesh Patel under the instruction of Mr. Rakesh Vyas respondent No. 1 states that having known that the revision preferred before the Additional Registrar against the bye-law No. 19.1.1A has been withdrawn and the stay is also vacated, and as the bye-law No. 19.1.1 has in force, constituencies may be required to be identified as per the bye-law. He submitted that earlier proposal was received by the society for election on the basis of the constituencies bifurcated as per bye-law No. 19.1.1A and therefore if this Court is of the view that the constituencies are to be identified as per the bye-law, again fresh publication will be required to be made of the delimitation of the constituency and the procedure may be required to be undertaken of the preliminary voter's list and the process thereafter. He submitted that the outer limit is provided by this Court as per the order dated 06.07.2015 in Special Civil Application No. 10474 of 2015, the District Collector undertook the process at the earliest. He submitted that the outer limit is provided by this Court as per the order dated 06.07.2015 in Special Civil Application No. 10474 of 2015, the District Collector undertook the process at the earliest. But, if this Court is of the view that the delimitation of the constituency already made by the Collector is not in accordance with the bye-laws and the Rules, the appropriate direction may be given by this Court for permitting the District Collector to undertake the process again so as to complete the election at the earliest. 4. Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has no objection if the fresh process is undertaken and the time bound programme is ordered by this Court. 5. In view of the above, it is observed and directed that the respondent No. 1 shall withdraw the present election program within two days and thereafter within two days, he shall publish the delimitation of the constituencies as per the bye-laws and the preliminary voter's list. The time to submit objections shall be granted of 15 days. Thereafter, the voter's list shall be finalised after considering the objections and the further process of different stages of election shall be undertaken so as to complete it within six weeks from the date of publication of the final voters' list." 10. If the facts of the present case are examined in light of the above referred legal position, it appears that the bye-laws expressly provides for Talukawise constituencies, whereas the proposal forwarded by the Managing Director of respondent No. 3 Society is not as per Talukawise constituency, but rather it is a mixture of more than one Taluka in a particular constituency which would run counter to the expressed provisions of the bye-laws. 11. Mr. Patel, learned AGP and Mr. Pahwa for respondent No. 3 attempted to contend that it is on account of the maintenance of equal number of voters in each constituency, the constituencies are defined which exceeds more than one Taluka and it was also submitted that the geographical location has also kept in mind and therefore it can be said that the formation of constituency would give equal representation to each of the voter. The respondent No. 1 acting in bona fide further proceed with the election based on the proposal forwarded by the Managing Director and therefore if the proportion is maintained in each constituency, more or less in the same manner, it cannot be said as an arbitrary or in contravention to any express provision of the Rules or the bye-laws. 12. In our view, the attempt cannot be countenance for the simple reason that once a particular constituency is already identified and expressly provided in the bye-laws, unless it has been shown as contrary to any statutory provision of the Act or the Rules, it is to be given effect. It is within a particular constituency, delimitation may be made by the Collector. When the bye-laws provided for 14 seats to be elected from general member cooperative societies without there being making any provision for each constituency within the said constituency it might stand on different footing and different consideration, but in the present case, the bye-law further provides for each one seat for a constituency Talukawise, meaning thereby there will be 14 constituencies for fourteen seats and such constituency has to be Talukawise. No provisions is shown to us under the Rules or the Act which provides that by virtue of bye-law, such constituencies cannot be defined in any particular society. In any case, bye-laws are not under challenge. Under the circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent No. 1 to apply his mind to find out as to whether the proposal forwarded for election by providing constituencies is proper or not. As in the present case, Collector has not passed any formal order for approving the delimitation of the constituency or making delimitation of the constituency, the action as part of the Collector can be said as without following mandatory procedure. Even if the powers were to be exercised, the constituencies were required to be formed as per the bye-laws and the delimitation could be made within the constituency by the Collector if required as observed earlier. As such when the objections were raised before the respondent No. 1 Collector, in light of the aforesaid legal position, he could have himself provided for the constituency but such has not happened and instead that, the objections are rejected. As such when the objections were raised before the respondent No. 1 Collector, in light of the aforesaid legal position, he could have himself provided for the constituency but such has not happened and instead that, the objections are rejected. Hence, we find that such aspects go to the root of the matter pertaining to the formation of the constituency has not been followed, which is mandatory on the part of the District Collector as per the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12067 of 2012 and allied matters dated 04.03.2013 read with the above referred decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Limited (supra). Hence, we find that impugned action on the part of the respondent No. 1 at Annexure-A as well as at Annexure-B cannot be sustained in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside with the further direction to the respondent No. 1 to form the constituency as per the bye-laws and to further exercise the power of delimitation and to initiate the process for holding of the election at the earliest and to complete the same as early as possible. 13. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned orders Annexure-A & B are set aside with the further direction that the respondent No. 1 shall delimit the constituency as per the expressed provision of bye-law No. 16.1.1 within 10 days from today and thereafter shall further undertake the process of publication of the voters' list and complete the elections within 60 days therefrom. 14. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. The learned AGP states that the respondent No. 1 is present and the order shall be conveyed by him.