JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Bharat Rao for the petitioner-Co-Operative Society as well as learned Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Shah. Also heard learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the applicant seeking to be joined as party by filing captioned the Civil Application. 2. What is prayed by the petitioner is as under. "setting aside the impugned order dated 7.6.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3 Authorised Officer rejecting the application of the petitioner society for inclusion of the names of the managing committee of petitioner society in the preliminary voters list of agriculturist constituency for the election of APMC Kotada Sangani and further be pleased to allow the said application and include the names of the members of the managing committee of petitioner society in the voter list of agriculturist constituency." 2.1 By the impugned order the authorized officer, for the grounds stated in the order, has directed the inclusion of two Co-Operative Societies in the revised list of voters, and directed exclusion of two societies including the petitioner-Sambhav Seva Sahkari Mandali Limited from the revised list of voters which came to be published on 20th June, 2016. 3. The facts may be noticed in a nutshell. The last elections to the Managing Committee of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Kotada Sangani took place in the year 2012. The term of the body having been expired in July, 2016, the Director of Agricultural Produce Market Committee issued election programme on 02nd May, 2016. When the authorized officer-the third respondent herein, published preliminary list of voters on 17th May, 2016, names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society were not included in such list. The petitioner therefore made an application on 21st May, 2016 for inclusion of the names members of its Managing Committee in the list. It is the impugned order by which the third respondent rejected the application of the petitioner society. 3.1 The following grounds could be discerned from the order on which the decision of the authorized officer is rested to exclude the petitioner members. First is that though registered in the year 2012, since last four years petitioners were not found to have taken finance and to have dealt in purchase and sales of agricultural produce and other agricultural items. Secondly it was recorded that as per the details produced by the petitioner, Rs. First is that though registered in the year 2012, since last four years petitioners were not found to have taken finance and to have dealt in purchase and sales of agricultural produce and other agricultural items. Secondly it was recorded that as per the details produced by the petitioner, Rs. 95,000/- is shown to have been credited has having finance extended by it to five different persons; however, entries in that regard was found to be paper-entries and five loanees were the brothers. In the next it was mentioned that the petitioner was not holding the membership of Rajkot District Co-operative Bank. The ground then stated was that it could not be said to be a co-operative society dispensing agricultural credit within the purport of section 11(1) of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act as it had projected the total agricultural credit worth Rs. 95,000/- which was an eye wash and the accounts of the Mandali was misleading and amounted to window-dressing. 3.2 The last ground mentioned was that the District Registrar had given notice to the petitioner Mandali for taking it into liquidation and interim order is also passed by the competent authority directing liquidation of the petitioner Mandali. The petitioner society appears to have been taken into liquidation. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently contended that the third respondent authorized officer has acted illegally in basing his order on the ground that the petitioner society is in liquidation, for, he submitted that, the Division Bench of this court in Dehtali Gopalak Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Limited v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 3700 of 2015 and allied petitions decided by judgment dated 17th March, 2015 has held that on this ground, the exclusion from the list of voters is not permissible. Learned advocate further assailed the order with referent to the rest of the ground submitting that they all are paper-deal and intended to be supplied only with a view to deliberately exclude the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner from the list of voters. He reverted to and pressed the grounds set forth in the memo of petition. It was thereafter specifically contended that the authorized officer has referred to the objections stated to have been lodged against the inclusion of the petitioner's name, by Shri Veraval Juth Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited-the applicant seeking to become party herein. He reverted to and pressed the grounds set forth in the memo of petition. It was thereafter specifically contended that the authorized officer has referred to the objections stated to have been lodged against the inclusion of the petitioner's name, by Shri Veraval Juth Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited-the applicant seeking to become party herein. It was submitted that there were no objections ever submitted and no copy was given to the petitioner if any such objections were lodged before the authority. 5. Dealing with the last contention first about the order mentioned in the objection by the said party without they being actually lodged, learned Assistant Government Pleader was asked to call for and verify this aspect. Today, a statement was made by learned Government Pleader, having called for and checking-up the original record, stated that the objections lodged by the said Shri Veraval Juth Seva Sahakari Mandali formed part of the record and were physically available in record. 5.1 Adverting to the contention that the ground of petitioner being liquidation was not be a valid ground to base the decision of exclusion of the petitioner from the list of voters, the same deserves to be countenanced and accepted in view of the Division Bench decision of this court in Dehtali Gopalak Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Limited (supra). 5.2 The Division Bench observed and held as under, "Section 108(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act provides that when a final order is made confirming the interim order, the Officer of the Society shall handover to the Liquidator the custody and control of any property etc., which for any reason are not handed over to the Liquidator under sub-section (2) at the time when the interim order was made and section 108(3) (b) provides that when a final order is made confirming the interim order, the office bearers shall vacate their offices and while winding up order remains in force, the general body of the society, shall not exercise any powers. Meaning thereby till the final order is made by the District Registrar confirming the interim order of winding up/ liquidation, the Officers of the Society shall continue to occupy their offices. The office bearers/Officers of the Society shall vacate their offices only when a final order is made confirming the interim order of winding up/liquidation. Meaning thereby till the final order is made by the District Registrar confirming the interim order of winding up/ liquidation, the Officers of the Society shall continue to occupy their offices. The office bearers/Officers of the Society shall vacate their offices only when a final order is made confirming the interim order of winding up/liquidation. Even while winding up order remains in force and/or after the final winding up order is passed by the District Registrar under Section 107(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act and after the period of limitation challenging the final order of winding up expires and thereafter the Registrar passes an order of cancellation of registration of a society, the registration of the Society continues. Therefore, on conjoint reading of Sections 107, 108 and 20 of the Cooperative Societies Act, after the interim winding up/liquidation order passed under Section 107(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act and before the final order of winding up is passed under Section 107(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act, the Officers shall continue to hold their offices and even the registration of the Society continues. Under the circumstances, when the registration of the Society continues, the members of the Managing Committee of such society dispensing with agricultural credit shall have a right to exercise their powers as officer bearers of the society i.e. to have their names included in the voters list of Agriculturist Constituency of the APMC, Siddhpur, considering Rule 5 of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rules. As such the aforesaid issue is now not res integra in view of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mansangbhai Dalsang Chaudhary (Supra). As such the aforesaid issue is now not res integra in view of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mansangbhai Dalsang Chaudhary (Supra). In the case before the learned Single Judge only interim order/s of winding up/liquidation was passed and no final order of winding up under Section 107(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act [in the order section 107(3) is wrongly mentioned as section 108(3)] and the names of the members of the Managing Committee of such societies were excluded from the voters list of Agriculturist Constituency and the same came to be set aside by the learned Single Judge by observing that as only interim orders directing the societies to be wound up under Section 107 of the Cooperative Societies Act has been passed and no final orders confirming the interim orders have been passed, the societies are not wound up and therefore, they are entitled to continue as voters till order under Section 108(3) [it should be section 107(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act] is passed. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge holding so. However, the view which we are taking and the submissions on behalf of the respondent No. 5 and the view taken by the Authorized Officer that once the interim order of winding up/liquidation of the society is passed, even though final order under Section 107(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act confirming the interim order of winding up/liquidation is passed, the members of the Managing Committee of such Societies shall not have any right to be included in the voters list of the Agriculturist Constituencies, in that case, in a given case, it may happen that just before few days of declaring the election and only with a view to see that the members of the Managing Committee of such Societies do not participate in the election and/or their names are not included in the voters list, the interim orders of winding up under Section 107(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act are passed. The view which we are taking is absolutely in conformity and on conjoint reading of Sections 107, 108 and 20 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The view which we are taking is absolutely in conformity and on conjoint reading of Sections 107, 108 and 20 of the Cooperative Societies Act. It is required to be noted that as such the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Mansangbhai Dalsang Chaudhary (Supra) is in operation since 1994 and which has been consistently followed." (Para 8.2) 5.3 In view of the above law laid down by the Division Bench the ground that the petitioner has been into liquidation and the interim order of liquidation or winding up is passed, does not hold good in law. Therefore, the said deserves to be scored off from the order and the same stands scored- off and set aside. 5.4 However, the order contains the other ground also. They are the grounds in the nature of factual merits to be gone into by visit it and adjudication the facts. Learned Government Pleader contended that in view of the election process, having been already in underway, and that the petitioner has remedy after the election, the petition is not liable to be entertained. 6. Having considered the impugned order in respect of the grounds on which it is based, except the ground ordered to be scored-off as above, the Court does not consider it fit and proper to go into the rival case on merits with regard to those grounds, at this stage when the elections have progressed. The elections were announced by the competent authority on 03rd May, 2016, preliminary publication of the list of voters was on 17th May, 2016, revised list was published on 07th June, 2016. The objections were invited to the revised list and final list of voters and after considering those objections, came to be published on 20th June, 2016. The filing of nominations was took place on 19th July, 2016, they were published on 19th July, 2016, scrutinised on 20th July, 2016 and 23rd July, 2016 was the date fixed for withdrawal of nominations. Thereafter final list of voters came to be published on 23rd July, 2016. Election is slated to take place on 02nd August, 2016, whereas counting is scheduled to take place on 03rd August, 2016. In other words, elections have progressed to reach at an advance stage. Thereafter final list of voters came to be published on 23rd July, 2016. Election is slated to take place on 02nd August, 2016, whereas counting is scheduled to take place on 03rd August, 2016. In other words, elections have progressed to reach at an advance stage. In any view, at any stage of election when the process thereof is on, this Court would be disinclined and loath to interpose itself so as to upset and disturb the election programme and interfering with the steps afoot in such programme. 7. Undisputedly, a remedy in form of filing election petition under Rule 28 of the Agriculture Produce Market Rules which provides for determination of legality and validity of election is available to the petitioner to be resorted to and after elections are over, and within seven days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. Election programme and the stages in any election has its own significance and cannot be lightly interfered with. 7.1 It is trite that all elections being democratic process, has to be allowed to be completed unimpeded as per the election schedule. All the disputes and allegations of irregularities and illegalities for their resolution have to be postponed till and after completion of elections to be dealt with and decided in accordance with machinery provided under the statute for determination of such election dispute. An election petition under Rule 28 of Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 is such post-election remedy available to the petitioner. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioner tried to rely on Full Bench decision of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited v. R.D. Doshit [2006(1) GCD 211], however no exceptional circumstances were pointed out which would justify the use of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court and interfere with the election process to upset the entire election programme at this stage. Ordinarily, as held, the exclusion or inclusion from list of voters in an election would never be exceptional circumstance to call for interference in the process of election. 8.1 In Rajeshbhai Vaghjibhai Chaudhari v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 8041 of 2016, this Court had taken the similar view in respect of elections to Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Mehsana, that once the elections were underway, it should not be interfered with. 8.1 In Rajeshbhai Vaghjibhai Chaudhari v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 8041 of 2016, this Court had taken the similar view in respect of elections to Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Mehsana, that once the elections were underway, it should not be interfered with. The decision was confirmed by the Division Bench as per order dated 22nd July, 2016 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 538 of 2016, in which after discussing the law in respect of powers of the Court to interfere with the election process, the Division Bench observed and held to confirm the view as under. "Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal position with regard to exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the election matters, if the facts of the present case are considered, it is revealed that the Authorized Officer has rejected the objections raised by the petitioners about inclusion of the names of petitioner Nos. 6 to 101 in the voters list. In the facts of the present case when a new market committee is constituted in September 2014 and thereafter the licences were issued to the concerned traders, we are prima facie of the opinion that Authorized Officer has not committed any jurisdictional error or order of the Authorized Officer cannot be said to be ultra vires or nullity nor the same can be termed as arbitrary. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the learned Single Judge is right in not exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and by observing that the petitioners can file an Election Petition under Rule 28 of the rules. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge and therefore the present appeal is devoid of any merits and accordingly it is dismissed." (Para 15) "However, we leave it open to the appellants that if the appellants petitioners are aggrieved by the result of election, they can approach the competent authority by raising en election dispute as contemplated under Rule 28 of the Rules. If such petition is filed, it shall be considered by the competent authority independently and uninfluenced by the prima facie findings recorded by this Court in this appeal." (para 16) 8.2 The same view is taken by the Division Bench in Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandli v. State of Gujarat being Letters Patent Appeal No. 569 of 2016 upholding the same view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons and position of law, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order except for the ground set aside. 10. Resultantly, the following order is passed. "(i) The ground that the cooperative society is in liquidation would not hold good as a ground to exclude the name of the petitioner cooperative society from the list of voters for the elections to the General Body of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kotda Sangani, in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Dethali Gopalak Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandli (supra) v. State of Gujarat decided as per common judgment dated 17.03.2015 being Special Civil Application No. 3700 of 2015 and others, and consequently the said grounds stands scored-off from the order; (ii) As far as the rest of the grounds are concerned, the order is not interposed by this Court as it would amount to interjecting and interfering with the process of election which is already underway and at the advance stage; (iii) The petitioner is at liberty to resort to remedy of filing of election petition after elections are over in accordance with law." 11. This petition stands disposed of, subject to the observations and directions as above. However without expressing any opinion on merits of the grounds other than set aside herein by the Authorised Officer in his impugned order as they would be the grounds open to be agitated after elections are over. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION In view of aforesaid order passed in the main petition, there shall be no order.