JUDGMENT : A.J. SHASTRI, J. 1. The present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs: “A. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned decision of the Authorized Officer by including the name of the respondent-Society and its committee members in the final voters list published on 23-11-2017 and the Authorized Officer be directed to remove the name of the respondent-Society and its members from the final voters’ list and to restrain from participating in the ensuing election of A.P.M.C., Vyara for Co-operative Marketing Societies Constituency. B. Pending the final hearing and disposal of the petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a mandatory relief directing the Authorized Officer to restrain the respondent-Society and its committee members from participating, exercising voting rights and contesting the election from the Co-operative Marketing Societies Constituency for the ensuring election of A.P.M.C., Vyara. C. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to punish the Authorized Officer for exercising the powers include the respondent-Society and its committee members in the final voters’ list published on 23-11-2017 and more particularly not holding eligibility criteria for inclusion in the list of voters, which are not available under the provision of the Act, 1963 and the Rules, 1965. D. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass such other order or orders as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is a member committee of Vyara Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. and also a Chairman of A.P.M.C., Vyara. It is submitted that the Sangh is holding a valid licence of market committee and the committee members of the Sangh are the voters for ensuing election of A.P.M.C., Vyara for Co-operative Marketing Constituency. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Director, Agriculture Marketing Rural Finance published election program of A.P.M.C., Vyara on 12-10-2017 by prescribing different stages for the election process. In that context, a preliminary voters’ list was published by Authorized Officer on 23-10-2017 and in view of such program, the names of the committee members of the Sangh were included in the Co-operative Marketing Societies Constituency of A.P.M.C., Vyara. In that context, a preliminary voters’ list was published by Authorized Officer on 23-10-2017 and in view of such program, the names of the committee members of the Sangh were included in the Co-operative Marketing Societies Constituency of A.P.M.C., Vyara. It is also the case of the petitioner that there were 3 Societies in the voters’ list of Co-operative Marketing Society Constituency and the name of the respondent-Society was not available in the voters’ list as the society was holding licence of market committee and was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria to be included in the voters’ list by virtue of Sec. 11(1)(ii) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’). 2.1. The petitioner has further asserted in the petition that Authorized Officer, pursuant to the election program, published a provisional voters’ list of respective constituencies on 10-11-2017 in which the name of the respondent-Society was not reflecting as a qualified voter. Subsequently, when the Authorized Officer published a final voters’ list of the respective constituencies on 23-11-2017, with utter surprise, the name of the respondent-Society and its committee members appears to have been included in the voters list, though no such powers are available to Authorized Officer as per the provision contained under Rule 81A of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965. It is further the case of the petitioner that though the respondent-Society was not holding the licence of the market committee and though name was not reflecting in preliminary voters’ list, straightaway, the Authorized Officer has included, with some oblique motive, the name of respondent-Society in final voters’ list. 2.2. On realizing that such a serious mistake or deliberate move has taken place at the behest of Authorized Officer, immediately on 23-11-2017 an application was made to the Authorized Officer raising grievance against inclusion of respondent-Society in the final voters’ list and justification is not given till filing of the petition. As a result of this, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 2.3. On 28-11-2017, a notice was issued by the Court made it returnable on 6-12-2017. As a result of this, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 2.3. On 28-11-2017, a notice was issued by the Court made it returnable on 6-12-2017. Thereafter, on 21-12-2017, by way of detailed order since the issue was deserving consideration at length, the Court on 21-12-2017 issued the Rule made it returnable on 8-1-2018, and subsequently, learned Advocates appearing for both the sides were heard at length and the matter was put up for order. On account of paucity of time, on 29-1-2018, the final order could not be passed, but then, suddenly w.e.f. 7-2-2018, the roster has been changed on account of which the petition was released. But thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 15-2-2018, the matter was again placed before this Court as the same was placed for order. Resultantly, the petition to be disposed of by present order. 3. Mr. D.B. Rana, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that pursuant to the election program, a preliminary voters’ list was prepared on 23-10-2017 reflecting on page 17 of the petition, and then, the objections were invited within a period of 14 days as per the requirement. After considering the objections, a final date for tendering objections against the preliminary voters’ list was prescribed upto 17-11-2017 and till that, the name of respondent-Society was not reflecting at all as the society including its committee members was not eligible to be included as voter. By referring to this, it has been contended that neither at the time of initial publication of preliminary voters’ list, the name of respondent-Society was reflecting nor the name was figuring. But then only at the stage of further objection on 17-11-2017, respondent No. 3 supplied the material and straightaway thereafter, in the final voters’ list on 23-11-2017, for the first time respondent No. 3 was introduced which apparently not permissible under any of the provisions authorizing such incorporation at the final stage. In the final voters’ list, as per the information, as many as 16 voters have been included on account of some unforeseen circumstance. As a result of this, the petitioner immediately made a representation but, since the same being not considered, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition. 3.1. Mr. In the final voters’ list, as per the information, as many as 16 voters have been included on account of some unforeseen circumstance. As a result of this, the petitioner immediately made a representation but, since the same being not considered, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition. 3.1. Mr. D.B. Rana, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has specifically contended that under the provisions of the Rules, there is no such power available with the Authorized Officer to straightaway include the name of respondent in such a manner in the final voters’ list, and therefore, this entire exercise of power is not only vitiated on account of lack of authority but, reflects clear mala fide. Hence, such unauthorized and illegal act deserves to be corrected by granting the relief as prayed for in the petition. 3.2. Mr. Rana, learned Advocate, has further contended that with a view to see that on the basis of such unauthorized action, no election process be concluded well within the time, the representation immediately has been given but, so far not decided. As a result of this, the petitioner was left with no alternate but to approach by way of present petition. Considering this situation, a specific contention is raised as a part of main submission that Authorized Officer has no jurisdiction to include the name of respondent-Society straightaway in the final voters’ list, more particularly when those names were not appearing either in the preliminary or provisional voters’ list. To substantiate his contentions, learned Advocate has relied upon the decision delivered by this Court in case of Mehsana District Co-op. Purchase & Sales Union Ltd. v. Dhadhusan Beej Utpadak Rupantar and Vechan Karnari Shakari Mandali Ltd., reported in 1998 (1) GLH 170 and in case of Prahladbhai Shivram Patel v. Director of Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance & Co., reported in 1998 (1) GLH 95 and by placing such reliance, a contention is raised that no such unauthorized act to be continued. Hence, any step in furtherance of this if taken also gets vitiated and nullified. No other submissions have been made. 4. To meet with the stand taken by Mr. D.B. Rana, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Hence, any step in furtherance of this if taken also gets vitiated and nullified. No other submissions have been made. 4. To meet with the stand taken by Mr. D.B. Rana, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Niraj Ashar, learned A.G.P. appearing for the State authority, has contended that inclusion and exclusion of the voter in the list in the election cannot be said to be material error, and therefore, once election has commenced, no interception be permitted. Learned A.G.P. has submitted that it is a settled position of law that once the process of election commenced, the High Court unless in exceptional cases, normally cannot exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and by inviting an attention to the election program, a contention is raised that this grievance raised by the petitioner cannot form a subject-matter of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. Learned A.G.P. has further submitted that Authorized Officer must have examined the issue and all relevant papers with regard to inclusion and such material lapse, if has been corrected by the Authorized Officer, it cannot be said that it is with any mala fide intent. Considering the documents which are attached with the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 3, learned A.G.P. has contended that the authority must have taken all these materials in mind, and thereafter, lapse might have been corrected by incorporating the name of respondent No. 3-Society along with committee members in the final voters’ list and it has been further contended that in any case, this is not a grievance which can be resolved by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction. No other submissions have been made. 5. With a view to assist the Court and with a view to represent the case of respondent No. 3, Mr. Vijay H. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for H.L. Patel Advocates, has vehemently contended that Pati Vibhag Bagayat Sahakari Mandli Ltd., has raised its grievance on number of occasions to the District Registrar against the conduct of A.P.M.C., Vyara as they are not issuing licence to the deponent Mandli with mala fide intent. Vijay H. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for H.L. Patel Advocates, has vehemently contended that Pati Vibhag Bagayat Sahakari Mandli Ltd., has raised its grievance on number of occasions to the District Registrar against the conduct of A.P.M.C., Vyara as they are not issuing licence to the deponent Mandli with mala fide intent. It has also been contended that respondent No. 3-Mandli is working to achieve its object right from its registration and the financial accounts with respect to F.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 have also been produced before the Authorized Officer and considering other details which have been brought to the notice, the Authorized Officer has included lawfully the name of respondent No. 3 in the final voters’ list. Since, the Authorized Officer has not incorporated the name of respondent No. 3 in the preliminary voters’ list on 23-10-2017 and in provisional voters’ list on 23-11-2017, prior to 23-11-2017 a representation was made on 31-10-2017 and considering such representation along with the documents, the Authorized Officer has inserted the name which is perfectly in accordance with law. Hence, there is no material irregularity of any nature in taking such decision. 6. By filing affidavit-in-rejoinder, the petitioner has made an attempt to oppose the stand taken by respondent No. 3 by pointing out that respondent No. 3-Society was registered on 5-5-2009, but had never applied for licence from A.P.M.C., Vyara except for the market year 2009-2010, and thereafter, straightaway, by paying requisite fee on 28-3-2017, the respondent-Society applied for the licence for the market year 2016-2017. Hence, the society was rightly not figuring in previous voters’ list for the election of Managing Committee of Market Committee. In Para 2.3 of the rejoinder, it has also been asserted by the petitioner that respondent No. 3-Society deposited a sum of Rs. 201/- with A.P.M.C., Vyara only on 28-3-2017 for the licence for the period of 2017-2018 but, had never applied for the previous years, and therefore, considering the fact of non-compliance of requirement of Sec. 11(1)(C) of the Act, the respondent No. 3-Society is not eligible in any manner for the purpose of inserting its name in the final voters’ list and as a part of rejoinder, Mr. Rana, learned Advocate, has pointed out and emphasized upon Rule 8(1A) of Rules which do not permit such inclusion to such whose name was not found in the preliminary as well as provisional voters’ list, and therefore, has reiterated that Authorized Officer’s decision is absolutely without the authority of law, and hence, the relief as prayed for in the petition deserves to be granted. 7. During the passage of time, some development has taken place which has been brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the said election process, the result has been declared and for which, learned A.G.P. has brought on record the communication dated 6-1-2018 along with other materials. 8. With this background of facts and the submissions, some of the relevant circumstances are specifically taken note of by the Court and keeping in view those circumstances, since the same are not possible to be unnoticed, are enlisted hereinafter: (1) First of all, the main plank of arguments of learned Advocate for the petitioner is that at the stage of publication of final voters’ list, there is no jurisdiction lies with Authorized Officer to include and insert the name of respondent No. 3. Now, in this context, if the Court peruses the lists which are attached to the petition indicate that in the first as well as second list, there is no name reflecting of respondent No. 3. First voters’ list published on 23-10-2017 in which also there is no name of respondent No. 3 inserted, whereas in the second voters’ list published on 10-11-2017 also there is no name of respondent No. 3 is reflecting. But it is at the final stage of voters’ list, reflecting on page 24 onwards, the name of respondent No. 3 and its members are incorporated by the Authorized Officer. This is an undisputed position prevailing on record of the present petition. So, the central issue which has been raised by the petitioner to be dealt with, is that whether at the stage of final list, the Authorized Officer can insert the name of respondent No. 3. (2) There is a specific objection raised on 23-11-2017, on that very day, when the final voters’ list is published raising objection that in what manner, the date has been inserted at a stage where every procedure under the Rules is over. (2) There is a specific objection raised on 23-11-2017, on that very day, when the final voters’ list is published raising objection that in what manner, the date has been inserted at a stage where every procedure under the Rules is over. This objection is reflecting on page 27 of the petition compilation. (3) Additionally, the affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent No. 3 in which also few averments are worth to be taken note of hence, perusal of affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 3, reflecting on page 28, is to be taken note of. In Paragraph No. 4 of the said affidavit-in-reply, the deponent of respondent No. 3 has asserted that with a view to obtain licence, a resolution came to be passed by the Mandali on 9-1-2017. It has also been asserted that on 28-3-2017, the licence fees for two years has been paid, one figure of Rs. 1,000/- and another Rs. 201/- to the A.P.M.C., Vyara for the year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 respectively. Further, averments of this Paragraph reflect that there is a grievance voiced out that on many occasions, the District Registrar is not issuing licence to the deponent Mandali with mala fide intention. Now, these averments which are made on oath, on 14-12-2017, reflect clearly that till this date i.e. on 14-12-2017, no licence was issued in favour of respondent No. 3. (4) Further reading of averments contained in Paragraph No. 7 also indicated that Authorized Officer has published preliminary voters’ list and provisional voters’ list on 23-10-2017 and 23-11-2017 respectively, but the name of members of the deponent Mandali was not included in the voters’ list. As a result of this, the representation was made with a request to insert the name of respondent No. 3 in the voters’ list and that representation is dated 31-10-2017. However, a perusal of these averments coupled with documents indicated that it is only at final voters’ list the name of respondent No. 3 is inserted and not prior thereto. As a result of this, the representation was made with a request to insert the name of respondent No. 3 in the voters’ list and that representation is dated 31-10-2017. However, a perusal of these averments coupled with documents indicated that it is only at final voters’ list the name of respondent No. 3 is inserted and not prior thereto. (5) Additionally, a perusal of other documents on page 35 onwards attached to affidavit-in-reply of respondent No. 3 only indicate that a resolution which has been passed on 9-1-2017 in which with a view to start the business, a licence is to be obtained, and therefore, it is for the first time on 9-1-2017 with a view to start business of agricultural production, a request for licence decided to be made, but not prior thereto. Page Nos. 36 and 37 are indicating that on one day only two years’ licence fee is submitted. Surprisingly, it is noticed on the next page that an application is submitted to the District Registrar and Election Officer indicating that since number of years purchase and sale of agricultural produce is being undertaken by respondent No. 3 and since 3 years licence is also being held by respondent No. 3 of a market yard. Therefore, requested to insert the name and for that purpose, 3 years balance-sheet is submitted attached with that. Now, this appears to be a self-contradictory to the earlier documents. However, be that as it may, since that is not in issue and the centre of controversy, the Court without much dwelling upon it is satisfied that till final voters’ list publication the name of respondent No. 3 was not inserted as voter. Page 66 is reflecting again an application dated 17-11-2017 which indicates requesting Election Officer to insert the name in amended list, but that second list was already published even prior to the application. Page 66 is reflecting again an application dated 17-11-2017 which indicates requesting Election Officer to insert the name in amended list, but that second list was already published even prior to the application. (6) Now, on the basis of such assertion and material placed with affidavit-in-reply, the affidavit-in-rejoinder which has been filed by petitioner has indicated that though society was registered on 5-5-2009, still had never applied for licence from A.P.M.C., Vyara except for the market year 2009-2010, and thereafter, applied for the first time by paying requisite fees on 28-3-2017 and for the year 2017-2018, as it appears had never applied for licence for the previous years, and therefore, a contention is raised that requirements of Sec. 11(1)(iii) of the Act are not fulfilled by respondent No. 3-Society for being enlisted in voters’ list of Marketing Co-operative Societies Constituencies. A further fact has been clarified that for the year 2016-1017 with a view to satisfy the eligibility criteria, no audited accounts are placed. As a result of this, no steps have been taken by respondent No. 3 and on the contrary, waited till the publication of final voters’ list on 23-11-2017. Resultantly, a contention is raised that inclusion of society is impermissible at the final stage of the voters’ list by virtue of Rule 8 of Rules of 1965. Now, these are the eventualities which are reflecting on the pleadings and in that context, a perusal of statutory provision deserves to be undertaken more particularly Sec. 11(1)(iii), which reads as under: “11. Constitution of Market Committee:- (1) Every market committee shall consist of the following members, namely: (iii) two representatives of the co-operative marketing societies situate in the market area and holding general licences, to be elected from amongst the members (other than nominal, associate or sympathiser members) of such societies by the members of the managing committees of such societies: Provided that where the number of co-operative marketing societies so situate does not exceed two, only one representative shall be so elected;” (7) The pre-requisite for such are two representatives of the Co-operative Marketing Societies holding general licences and engaged in the business in conformity with their respective objects and have their last accounts audited to be elected. Now, if these are the contingencies which are stipulated in Clause-C, a perusal of the record indicates that undisputedly respondent is not holding the licence and further having not produced last audited accounts in Class A, B and C, as the case may be. The documents attached to these contingencies requirement are self-explanatory. (8) Additionally, in this context, a perusal of documents at page Nos. 36 and 37 clearly indicates that merely paying the licence fees will not be treated as automatic grant of licence, but that application for seeking licence has to be approved. Now, no such approval is produced by respondent No. 3, and therefore, also undisputedly respondent No. 3 is not holding licence at a relevant point of time. 9. Apart from this, the effect of the relevant Rules also cannot be given a go-bye. The Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 indicates certain contingencies to be satisfied. Rule 6 of the Rules has prescribed a qualification criteria for becoming eligible for casting vote, which reads as under: “6. Declaration of Market areas:- (1) After the expiry of the period specified in the notification issued under Sec. 5 (hereinafter referred to in this Section as “the said notification”), and after considering the objections and suggestions received before its expiry and holding such inquiry as may be necessary, the Director may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare the area specified in the said notification or any portion thereof to be a market area for the purposes of this Act in respect of all or any of the kinds of agricultural produce specified in the said notification. A Notification under Sec. 5 (under this sub-section) shall also be published in Gujarati in a newspaper having circulation in the said area and in such other manner, as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time- being in force, from the date on which any area is declared to be a market area under sub-sec. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time- being in force, from the date on which any area is declared to be a market area under sub-sec. (1), no place in the said area shall be used for the purchase or sale of any agricultural produce specified in the notification except in accordance with the provisions of the Act: Provided that pending the establishment of a market in such area the Director may grant a licence to any person to use any place in the said area for the purchase or sale of any such agricultural produce and a licence so granted shall, unless it is cancelled or otherwise ceases to be in force, continue in force until the establishment of a market in the said area and for such period thereafter as may be prescribed. (3) Nothing in sub-sec. (2) shall apply to the purchase or sale of any such agricultural produce, if its producer is himself its seller and the purchaser purchases it for his own private consumption. (4) The Director may, on the report of the market committee or an officer appointed by the Director in this behalf and after holding such inquiry as he deems fit, suspend or cancel any licence granted under sub-sec. (2). (5) After declaring in the manner specified in Sec. 5 his intention of so doing, and following the procedure therein, the Director may, at any time by notification in the Official Gazette, exclude any area from a market area specified in a notification issued under sub-sec. (1), or include any area therein and exclude from or add to the kinds of agricultural produce so specified any kind of agricultural produce. 6 (A notification under this sub-section shall also be published in Gujarati in a newspaper having circulation in the said area and in such other manner, as may be prescribed.)” 10. Now, this is to be read in co-relation with Rule 8 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, which prescribed the stages of publication of voters’ list provisional as well as final. Since, the same is relevant, reproduced hereinafter: “8. Now, this is to be read in co-relation with Rule 8 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, which prescribed the stages of publication of voters’ list provisional as well as final. Since, the same is relevant, reproduced hereinafter: “8. Provisional and final publication of lists of voters:- (1) As soon as a list of voters is prepared under Rule 5, it shall be published by the authorized officer by affixing a copy thereof at the office of the market committee and at some conspicuous place in the principal market yard in the market area along with a notice stating that any person whose name is not entered in the list of voters and who claims that his name should be entered therein or any person who thinks that his name or the name of some other person has been wrongly entered therein or has not been correctly entered, may, within fourteen days from the date of the publication of the notice, apply to the authorized officer for an amendment of the list of voters. [(1A) After receiving applications if any, under sub-rule (1) a revised draft list of voters shall be published by the authorized officer by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of Agricultural Produce Market Committee and at some conspicuous place in the principal market yard of the market area, along with a notice stating that any person who wishes to raise any objection against any new name entered in this list, may apply within seven days from the date of publication of this notice to the authorized officer for an amendment in the revised draft list of voters.] (2) If any application is received under sub-rule (1A), the authorized officer shall decide the same and shall cause to be prepared and published the final list of voters, after making such amendments therein as may be necessary in pursuance of the decision given by him on the application. The final list shall be prepared at, at least thirty days before the date fixed for the nomination of candidates for the election.” 11. By virtue of amendment on 17-6-1989 vide notification sub-rule (1)(A) is inserted which prescribes about revised draft list of voters to be published by Authorized Officer and after the process of sub-rule (1)(A), the Authorized Officer shall have to decide and then published final list of voters’ after making suitable amendments. By virtue of amendment on 17-6-1989 vide notification sub-rule (1)(A) is inserted which prescribes about revised draft list of voters to be published by Authorized Officer and after the process of sub-rule (1)(A), the Authorized Officer shall have to decide and then published final list of voters’ after making suitable amendments. A conjoint reading of this effect of rules indicate that prior to publication of final voters’ list, the process of amending inclusion or deletion will have to be undergone and the final list shall be prepared at least 30 days before the date fixed for nomination of candidates for election. Now, in effect a perusal of this relevant record that it is respondent No. 3 who has not acted promptly and has allowed the final list to be published on 23-11-2017 and on that day, the insertion has taken placed by the Authorized Officer which obviously will have the effect of frustrating the very amending provision and the effect of inserted rule. The mechanism which has been provided under Rule 8 in substance is that any person who claims to be entered in the list of voters which has been prepared under Rule 5 has to apply within 14 days from the date of publication of notice before the Authorized Officer for seeking an amendment of list of voters’, secondly the Authorized Office is entrusted with a duty to examine the application given under sub-rule (1) and published a revised draft list of voters by affixing on appropriate place mentioned in the sub-rule (1)(A) and along with notice that any person who desires to raise any objection about new names entered in the list may apply within 7 days and then after complying this procedure, the Authorized Officer is obliged to publish the final voters’ list after making such amendments and this list shall be prepared at least 30 days before the date as mentioned. The resultant effect is that Authorized Officer has no authority to insert the name at a last moment thereto at the time of final publication of voters’ list. 12. The resultant effect is that Authorized Officer has no authority to insert the name at a last moment thereto at the time of final publication of voters’ list. 12. This effect of Rule had an occasion to be dealt with by the Court on many occasions and in the year 1998 when the Court was confronted with a situation of a similar issue whether the Authorized Officer has jurisdiction to add and delete the names after revised list under sub-rule (1)(A), the question was answered by the Court in the case of Prahladbhai Shivram Patel v. Director of Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance, reported in 1998 (1) GLH 95 , and has propounded the effect of Rule 8 and insertion of sub-rule (1)(A). The relevant abstract of such proposition contained in Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 is sufficiently making it clear that authorized officer has no jurisdiction to effect at that stage of final publication. Additionally, the decision in the case of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2013 (2) GCD 1338, is also making it clear and clearly answering the controversy involved in the present petition. The reference of relevant Paragraphs contained in Paras 19 and 21 are, since considered, reproduced hereinafter. “19. The attempt to contend that in all matters where the question is pertaining to exclusion or inclusion of Member from the voters’ list, cannot be entertained in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by treating as extraordinary circumstances, in our view cannot be countenanced for following reason. (i) One is that the very decision of the Full Bench is subsequently considered by this Court in case of Shrutbandhu H. Popat v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2007 (3) GLR 1942 and it was held by this Court that after the above-referred decision of Full Bench, the Apex Court in case of Pundlik v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005 (7) SCC 181 has observed that the High Court would not interfere in exercise of power under Art. 226 of the Constitution at the stage of preparation of the voters’ list, but such action must be in accordance with law. But the principle is that if the action is ultra vires to the power or ex facie without jurisdiction and without disturbing the election process, the power under Art. 226 of the Constitution can be exercised if the case is so made out. Therefore, we find that after considering the decision of the Full Bench, this Court in its subsequent decision has taken the view that where the case was made out for the action being ultra vires or the nullity, the interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution could not be said as not warranted. If the action is ultra vires and nullity, such case can be termed as an extraordinary circumstance to exercise of the power under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 21. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, we find that the action of the Authorized Officer of entertaining the objections against the name of the office bearers of the petitioners-Societies under Rule 8(1A) of the Rules was wholly ultra vires to his powers, and consequently, the order passed for removal of the names of the office bearers of the petitioners-Societies from the final voters’ list is also without any authority of law or ex-facie without jurisdiction. Therefore, it appears to us that it is a fit case for interference for exercise of the power under Art. 226 of the Constitution.” 13. In the background of aforesaid situation, a perusal of the grievance voiced out in the petition appears to be just and proper and action of Authorized Officer in inserting the name of respondent No. 3 at a final voters’ list published on 23-11-2017 is an action has no legal support. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent has of course made an attempt by pointing out an objection with regard to availability of alternate remedy by relying upon a decision delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Reena Suresh Alhat v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2017 (3) SCC 119 . However, in view of the fact that analyzing the grievances of the petitioner with the aid and assistance of even the documents of respondent No. 3 is leading the Court to a conclusion that the action is not at all supported by any legal force. However, in view of the fact that analyzing the grievances of the petitioner with the aid and assistance of even the documents of respondent No. 3 is leading the Court to a conclusion that the action is not at all supported by any legal force. In a decision which has been cited above in case of Prahladbhai Shivram Patel (supra) in which also in a petition being Special Civil Application No. 8536 of 1997, the very similar situation has been dealt with and the Court has opined that similarity is visible here in the background of this fact, and as such, the Court has no option but to go with the line of proposition which has been laid down in the said decision while disposing of the present petition. With regard to an alternate remedy, a technical issue which has been raised, the Court has an assistance of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mehsana District Co-op. Purchase & Sales Union Ltd. v. Dhadhusan Beej Utpadak Rupantar and Vechan Karnari Sahkari Mandali Ltd., reported in 1998 (1) GLH 170 and the law is amply clear even in the recent pronouncement as well which indicates that Rule 28 may not be an effective remedy efficacious enough in view of clear factual background of present case even in that case the Division Bench has clearly ordered that in an identical situation like this, the petitioners of that petition were allowed to exercise their franchise and directed that the result of the election shall not be declared and it has been clarified that votes, if any, cast by petitioners of that petition are to be treated as invalid and the authorities are free to declare the result by considering that. Here is also a case in which by detailed order dated 21-12-2017, the process of election was not intercepted by the Court and the result of election of Co-operative Marketing Society Constituencies, A.P.M.C., Vyara was ordered not to be declared without permission of the Court. At present, it has been reported before the Court that election did take place and on account of the effect of this order, the Authorized Officer is permitted to declare the result after treating the votes of respondent No. 3, as invalid and shall declare the result promptly. 14. At present, it has been reported before the Court that election did take place and on account of the effect of this order, the Authorized Officer is permitted to declare the result after treating the votes of respondent No. 3, as invalid and shall declare the result promptly. 14. The Court is also noticing the fact that it is settled position of law that election statute is to be construed strictly and this being a statute related to election the strict requirement of procedure and the Rules will have to be insisted upon and it is a further proposition of law that statutory provisions must be given a full effect and no Court can pass any order contrary to statutory provisions so long as it exists and considering the aforesaid discussion, it appears that case is successfully made out by the petitioner. The ultimate out-come of the analysis on record of the present case in the context of provisions of the Act and the Rules would lead to a situation where it can be confidently concluded that case is established by the petitioner which necessitates the Court to grant the relief as prayed for. As a result of this, the impugned decision of Authorized Officer whereby name of respondent No. 3-Society and its committee members, which are inserted in final voters’ list, dated 23-11-2017 is quashed and set aside and the names of respondent No. 3 and its committee members are directed to be deleted from the final voters’ list and by giving effect to the same, the result of election of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Vyara, shall be declared. 15. With these observations, the petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.