JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J. 1. The appellants-original petitioners have filed present Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 10.7.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 10999 of 2019, by which the appellants’ petition came to be dismissed. 2. Background of facts is that the appellants are the societies registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and are situated within the market area of the respondent No. 3-Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Talod (APMC, Talod). According to the appellants, they are holding general licenses for the year 2018-19 and also for the current year 2019-20 and their accounts were audited by the Auditor of the Government, wherein they were given assessment Class-B by the auditor. It is the case of the appellants that after following due procedure, bye-laws of the respective appellant societies came to be amended, which according to the appellants were approved by the Additional District Registrar on 22.2.2016 and 28.2.2016 respectively. Thus, according to the appellants, though societies were eligible to be included in the voter’s list of the constituency of the Cooperative Marketing Societies as per the provisions contained under Section 11(1)(iii) of the APMC Act, Director of Agricultural Marketing Rural Finance (AMRF) has declared only one seat for the constituency of the Cooperative Marketing Society. 2.1. The appellants have stated that the Director of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Rural Finance having passed an order on 24.5.2019, appointing the authorized officer to conduct the election and as such, the present appellant No. 1 society initially preferred Special Civil Application No. 9898 of 2019 before this Court, wherein vide order dated 14.6.2019, the Court directed the Director, AMRF to decide the representation and thereby the petition came to be disposed of. Subsequently, the Director, AMRF passed an order on 21.6.2019 confirming one seat for the constituency of the Cooperative Marketing Society, which has given rise to filing of petition. 2.2. The appellants have preferred the afore-mentioned petition basically by contending that as per the record of AMPC, Talod, total 5 societies were holding General License of AMPC and as such, 2 seats are to be allotted for the constituency of Cooperative Marketing Society. 2.2. The appellants have preferred the afore-mentioned petition basically by contending that as per the record of AMPC, Talod, total 5 societies were holding General License of AMPC and as such, 2 seats are to be allotted for the constituency of Cooperative Marketing Society. However, the Director, AMRF has erroneously confirmed one seat only for the constituency of Cooperative Marketing Society and as such, said order came to be challenged. 2.3. It appears that after completion of the pleadings, the matter came up for consideration before learned Single Judge, who, after hearing at length, was pleased to dismiss the petition vide order dated 10.7.2019, which is made the subject matter of the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent before us. 2.4. In this Letters Patent Appeal, on 22.7.2019, the Division Bench was pleased to issue notice and after hearing the respective learned advocates, the appeal came to be admitted on 8.8.2019 and by a detailed order, the appellant societies were permitted to submit their nomination forms subject to outcome of the appeal. The said detailed order reads as under:- “Appeal is admitted. Mr. Dilip Rana, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has drawn our attention to Section 11(1)(iii) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act, 1963 (“APMC Act” for short) pertaining to constitution of market committee which provides two representatives of the cooperative marketing societies situate in the market area, holding general licenses, engaged in the business in conformity with their respective objects and have their last accounts audited in Class A, B or C, as the case may be 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. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appellants fulfill all the criteria namely they are cooperative marketing societies situated in the market area, holding general license on 14.05.2019 for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and as per the election programme notified on 24.05.2019, are eligible to be included in the voters' list of cooperative marketing society constituency and therefore earlier letter was addressed by the Incharge Secretary of Respondent No. 3 APMC, Talod to the Deputy Director dated 09.01.2019 that there were only two cooperative marketing societies holding general license in the market area of APMC was not correct fact inspite of the fact that all these issues were agitated by the appellants before the Director, Agricultural Marketing Rural Finance (AMRF, for short) upon relegating the appellants to ventilate their grievance in earlier round of litigation by learned Single Judge as per order dated 14.06.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9898 of 2019. It is submitted that the reasonings of the Director, AMRF about certain transactions which were entered into and obtaining license were only with a view to get the names included in the voters' list by the appellants are therefore irrelevant. Reliance is placed upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dolatbhai Prabhubhai Dumaniya vs. Director - Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance and Others, 2013 (2) GLH 157 wherein no doubt the Division Bench of this Court considered the settled principles of exercise of powers by writ court when election programme is declared not to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but at the same time about acquiring eligibility to be a voter a specific date to be considered is the date on which election programme is declared. It is therefore submitted that the direction be issued as prayed for since further stage of scrutiny and final publication of voters' list is over on 10.07.2019 under Rule 10(2) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 (‘the APMC Rules’ for short) i.e. the form is to be filled in by tomorrow i.e. on 09.09.2019 appropriate direction is sought for. The above submissions and prayer are opposed by learned Assistant Government Pleader and an application being Civil Application No. 2 of 2019 which is filed by one of the cooperative marketing societies to be joined in this appeal, though not represented its case before the learned Single Judge and not permitted to be joined by learned Single Judge and submitted that the order passed by the Director, AMRF on 21.06.2019 contained an elaborate reasons and the purport and object of the appellant society was only for participating in election. Otherwise originally they were registered as Fruits and Vegetables Produce Cooperative Society and by change of name and objects, license is obtained in March, 2019 as a processing cooperative society. It is further submitted that learned judge having adverted to the above reasons of the Director, AMRF, dismissed the writ petition and once the election programme is declared, the writ court would not like to interfere in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the decision of learned Single Judge in the case of Jagannathpuri Cooperative Service Society Ltd. through Secretary, Dahyabhai Manilal Patel and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2019 (2) GLH 325 wherein relevant provisions of AMPC Act and Rules framed thereunder pertaining to license were considered by the learned Single Judge visavis Article 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India. It is accordingly submitted that when the list of final voters is over on 10.07.2019, at a belated stage no direction can be given. We find force in the submission made by Mr. Dilip Rana learned advocate appearing for the appellants. Admittedly, election programme was notified on 24.05.2019 and immediately thereafter writ petition was filed being Special Civil Application No. 9898 of 2019 whereby the petitioner was directed to approach Director, AMRF who turned down the request only on 21.06.2019 and once again the appellant had invoked writ jurisdiction of learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 10999 of 2019 which came to be rejected on 10.07.2019 and this appeal is accordingly filed in which notice was issued on 22.07.2019. Therefore clear facts emerge about registration of appellants cooperative societies which have obtained license for the year 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 for which certificate was issued on 14.05.2019. Therefore clear facts emerge about registration of appellants cooperative societies which have obtained license for the year 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 for which certificate was issued on 14.05.2019. No doubt letter was written by Respondent No. 3 Talod on 09.01.2019 but at the same time the appellants fulfill all ingredients and requirement of Section 11(1)(iii) of the Act to be eligible to be included in the voters' list and also for the purpose of nomination as per election programme which was notified on 24.05.2019 after the above certificate was issued. Ordinarily, we would not have exercised powers as such, but in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the respondents shall permit the appellants societies to submit nomination form by tomorrow i.e. 09.08.2019 subject to outcome of the present appeal. Direct service today is permitted. Appeal to be heard on 19.09.2019.” 2.5. By that time, one another Cooperative Society, named Umed Ni Muhvadi Group Khet Paidas and Processing Cooperative Society Limited has filed Civil Application No. 2 of 2019 for being impleaded as party to the Letters Patent Appeal. Thereafter, it appears that the present appellants have filed Civil Application No. 4 of 2019 for seeking relief to restrain the respondent authorities from calling the meeting for electing Chairman and Vice Chairman from the newly elected Committee Members of APMC since results were declared on 21.8.2019 and sought direction upon the Election Officer to declare two candidates for two seats of Cooperative Marketing Society constituency as elected so that both candidates can participate in the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman from the newly elected body. This Civil Application No. 4 of 2019 is ordered to be heard with the main Letters Patent Appeal vide order dated 29.8.2019. This Civil Application is filed since there was non-inclusion of the applicants’ society in the voter’s list of the Cooperative Marketing Society constituency, which, according to the appellants, was found to be mala-fide or under political influence and as such, were aggrieved by the same, accordingly they filed the Civil Application. 2.6. This Civil Application is filed since there was non-inclusion of the applicants’ society in the voter’s list of the Cooperative Marketing Society constituency, which, according to the appellants, was found to be mala-fide or under political influence and as such, were aggrieved by the same, accordingly they filed the Civil Application. 2.6. Yet, another Civil Application is filed by the applicants, being Civil Application No. 3 of 2019 for seeking relief that pending hearing and disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass necessary orders directing the Director, AMRF and the Election Officer to include the names of the Committee Members of these applicants’ societies in the voter’s list, so that as per the provisions of law, the Committee Members of the applicant Societies can exercise their voting rights in electing two representatives of the Cooperative Marketing Society constituency. This Civil Application is also ordered to be placed with the main matter vide order dated 19.8.2019. 2.7. Subsequently, it appears that one another Civil Application No. 5 of 2019 came to be filed for seeking relief to quash and set aside the election held on 6.9.2019 for the post of Chairman and Vice Chairman from the newly elected body for the reasons stated in the application and the elected office bearers be restrained from taking policy decision till final disposal of the main Letters Patent Appeal and sought an incidental relief as prayed for. This Civil Application bears no order but, it appears that the same is placed with the main Letters Patent Appeal. 2.8. The order-sheet also reflects one another order dated 3.9.2019 passed on the Note for Speaking to Minute, of an order dated 29.8.2019 and the Note for Speaking to Minute came to be disposed of vide order dated 3.9.2019, which reads as under:- 1. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in fact, the Court had passed the order while examining the matter and observed that the election that may be held for the post of Chairman and Vice Chairman will be subject to the outcome of the Letters Patent Appeal, however, the same could not be transcribed in the order as though earlier matter was disposed of but the Court thought it fit to be kept along with the main matter. 2. 2. In view of the above, we are of the view that the order dated 29.08.2019 needs to be read as if the following words are incorporated in the order. “The election to the post of Chairman and Vice Chairman, APMC, Kalol is subject to the final outcome of the Letters Patent Appeal.” 3. Now, the order dated 29.08.2019 reads as under: “To be heard with main Letters Patent Appeal. The election to the post of Chairman and Vice Chairman, APMC, Kalol is subject to the final outcome of the Letters Patent Appeal.” 4. The speaking to minutes note stands disposed of. 2.9. With the aforesaid background of facts situation, reflecting on the record, this Letters Patent Appeal was heard by us at length after granting full opportunities to both the sides. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Dilip B. Rana appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that learned Single Judge has seriously erred in dismissing the petition without appreciating the fact that the requisite conditions contained under the provisions of Section 11(1)(iii) of the APMC Act are fulfilled by the appellants and their names deserve to be included by virtue of the fact that the appellants are situated within the market area holding the General Licenses for the year 2018-19 and also for the current year i.e. 2019-20 and the societies were after the audit categorized as ‘B’ assigned by the auditor. It has further been contended that by virtue of the provisions, respondent No. 1 authority has against evidence declared one seat for the constituency of the Cooperative Marketing Society and therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 1 is perverse to the record, that ought to have been appreciated by learned Single Judge. It has further been contended that the impugned judgment has not correctly observed that the bye-laws were not approved by the District Registrar as per the provisions of the AMPC Act. It has also erred in observing that the appellant societies had procured their licenses after declaration of the election and therefore, they are not eligible to be included in the voter’s list. To contend this, learned advocate Mr. Rana has submitted that the appellant Nos. It has also erred in observing that the appellant societies had procured their licenses after declaration of the election and therefore, they are not eligible to be included in the voter’s list. To contend this, learned advocate Mr. Rana has submitted that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 societies applied for General License to the Market Committee on 25.3.2019 and 28.3.2019 respectively for the year 2019-20 and paid requisite fee and the same was granted by the Market Committee in the General meeting held on 2.5.2019, whereas, the certificate of license came to be issued on 14.5.2019 and since the election program was declared by the Director after this date, i.e. on 24.5.2019, the appellant societies had acquired the eligibility criteria prior to publication of the election program. That aspect ought to have been appreciated by learned Single Judge in its true perspective. 3.1. Learned advocate Mr. Rana has further submitted that even the respondent No. 1 authority has seriously error in coming to the conclusion that only one seat is required to be allocated, whereas on record, it appears that 5 societies were holding General Licenses and as such, two seats are to be published by the Director and that having not been done, a serious error is committed. In addition to this, Mr. Rana has submitted that the authorized officer who published final voter list on 10.7.2019 did reflect appellants’ societies at serial Nos. 118 and 119 of the Traders constituency but their eligibility is ignored for Cooperative Marketing Society constituency and as such, the Director, i.e. respondent No. 1, ought to have examined this aspect minutely. When 5 societies are holding General License for Market Year 2019-20 and are situated within the market area of AMPC, Talod, by virtue of the provisions under Section 11(1)(iii) of the APMC Act, two representatives of the Cooperative Marketing Societies ought to have been allowed. This action on the part of the respondent authority is mala-fide exercise according to Mr. Rana and politically influenced. By referring to Section 11 of the APMC Act, a contention is reiterated and it is submitted that though the accounts of the appellants came to be audited by the Government auditor, they are not included. As a result of this, a serious error is committed. 3.2. Learned advocate Mr. Rana and politically influenced. By referring to Section 11 of the APMC Act, a contention is reiterated and it is submitted that though the accounts of the appellants came to be audited by the Government auditor, they are not included. As a result of this, a serious error is committed. 3.2. Learned advocate Mr. Rana has further contended that simply because, at the relevant point of time, the market committee supplied two names of the societies on 9.1.2019 to the Deputy Director-AMRF, Himmatnagar, that could not have been the criteria. Further examination ought to have been undertaken, especially when it was informed that five societies are situated. Mr. Rana has pointed out that the eligibility criteria for including the appellants’ names in the voter list since found to have been on the date of declaration of the election program by virtue of the decision reported in 2013 (2) GLH 157, learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the stand of the appellants. Mr. Rana has submitted that this is the reason why after appreciating the contentions, the Division Bench was pleased to admit the appeal and pass the orders, as stated hereinabove. Mr. Rana, after submitting all these contentions, has requested the Court to allow the Letters Patent Appeal by granting the consequential relief, as prayed for in the proceedings. No other submissions have been made. 4. As against the aforesaid submissions, learned Government Pleader Mrs. Manisha L. Shah, assisted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. J.K. Shah appearing for the State-respondent, has vehemently opposed the stand of the appellants. It has been specifically contended that the order passed by the respondent No. 1 is a well-reasoned order, which has rightly been appreciated and considered by learned Single Judge and as such, in absence of any error committed by learned Single Judge, the appeal may not be entertained. It has further been contended that there is a clear assertion in the order passed by the respondent No. 1 and when the particulars were sought, the Market Committee on 9.1.2019 had specifically conveyed that two Cooperative Mandalis are having general licenses in the market area and the same came to be forwarded to the Deputy Director. It has further been contended that there is a clear assertion in the order passed by the respondent No. 1 and when the particulars were sought, the Market Committee on 9.1.2019 had specifically conveyed that two Cooperative Mandalis are having general licenses in the market area and the same came to be forwarded to the Deputy Director. So, when the information was sought for publication of the election program, what has been projected before the authority is that only two Cooperative Mandalis were there, namely The Talod Taluka Sahkari Kharid Vechan Limited and The Talod Group Cooperative Cotton Sale Ginning Processing and Oil Mill Society Ltd. and as such, on the basis of the said information, which has been passed on by the Market Committee itself in view of Section 11(1)(iii) of the APMC Act, one committee was rightly allotted. It has also been vehemently contended that serious mischief is committed that after supplying the said information in January 2019, after preparation of program, on 30.1.2019, upon fulfillment of the particulars as on 23.1.2019, some new committees appear to have been surfaced and introduced. It has vehemently been contended that the program was already prepared on 30.1.2019, as reflecting on page 28. It is only on account of the Lok Sabha election, the said program was postponed and later on, published on 20.5.2019 and as such, as on 30.1.2019, as per the Market Committee itself, there were only two Cooperative Societies, as named above and these societies which have now tried to be introduced have been given license later in point of time. Such licenses to these appellants have been granted only on 12.3.2019 for the year 2018-19, which ordinary to be granted in the month of March 2018. Whereas for the year 2019-20, license came to be issued on 14.5.2019 and as such, a manipulation has taken place at the instance of the APMC to introduce the more numbers so as to secure one additional seat. This manipulation has taken place and has been well-examined by the Director, i.e. respondent No. 1 and the same has been rightly appreciated and considered by learned Single Judge. According to Mrs. This manipulation has taken place and has been well-examined by the Director, i.e. respondent No. 1 and the same has been rightly appreciated and considered by learned Single Judge. According to Mrs. Shah, if this broad view about eligibility to be taken, there will be creating a room for allowing such kind of market committee to go on to achieve their political goal by creating artificial majority and as such, there is no error committed by learned Single Judge for considering the same. 4.1. Learned Government Pleader Mrs. Shah has further contended that on the basis of the information which has been passed on by the market committee on 9.1.2019, program was already prepared as per the requirement on 30.1.2019. It is postponed merely on account of the Lok Sabha election and attempt has been made to take disadvantage of the situation of postponement and thereby granted additional licenses to three more Cooperative Societies just to inflate the figure, as such this attempt on the part of the original petitioners has been well-examined not only by the authority but also by learned Single Judge. Hence, there is no error committed of any nature. Mrs. Shah further contended that on the basis of the available record, it has been found that only one or two transactions have taken place at the instance of these appellant societies just to include their names in the voter list and there is no consistent business or transaction in the market area with this constituency by the appellants and that being the position, this attempt deserves to be discouraged. To substantiate this contention, Mrs. Shah has drawn the attention of this Court to various documents attached to the appeal memo and thereby has contended to dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal. 4.2. Learned Government Pleader Mrs. Shah has further submitted that on the previous hearing, where the appeal came to be admitted, perhaps, these documents might not have been referred to, but the fact that if at the last moment after election process has started, if general license is issued or if eligibility criteria is tried to be secured, that would not permit the appellants to claim as of right to be included in the voter’s list. 4.3. Ultimately, learned Government Pleader Mrs. 4.3. Ultimately, learned Government Pleader Mrs. Shah has contended that in view of the decision delivered by the Full Bench of this Court that inclusion or exclusion in the voter’s list is the part of process of election. No intervention be made since there is substitute remedy available by presenting election petition and in any case, now, result has already been declared, proper remedy would be to prefer an election petition where all these issues which are already tried to be raised can well be examined and adjudicated at length. Since detailed factual background is required to be examined, the fact finding authority will have to undertake such exercise because ultimately, the grievance of the present appellants is that they have not been included in the voter list and by taking note of the information supplied vide communication dated 9.1.2019, only one seat came to be allotted. Now, whether the appellants or the other societies have been rightly introduced or not, general licenses have been given properly or not and whether they are genuinely transacting the business or not, all these incidental issues can be examined by the appropriate fact finding authority and for raising these grievances, proper remedy is available to the appellants. Mrs. Shah has, as such, vehemently opposed this appeal and requested to dismiss the same. 4.4. It has further been pointed out that originally, these appellants were registered as Fruit and Vegetable Mandalis and were included in that category. It is only after supplying the information in January 2019, as an afterthought measure, general licenses came to be issued and seeing the sequence of issuance of license for the year 2018-19, general license came to be issued on 12.3.2019 and within two months only, another license on 14.5.2019 came to be issued for the year 2019-20 and just by paying an amount of Rs. 1403/-. Even the transactions have also not taken place in these appellant societies, which speak volume about the conduct of APMC. It is only when postponed election program was sought to be published, these licenses have been issued abruptly and communication was issued on 4.5.2019 indicating that there are five societies like the present appellants and thereby, requested for two seats for Cooperative constituency. By referring to all these circumstances and the submissions, Mrs. Shah has vehemently opposed this appeal and since merit-less, same is requested to be dismissed. 4.5. By referring to all these circumstances and the submissions, Mrs. Shah has vehemently opposed this appeal and since merit-less, same is requested to be dismissed. 4.5. Learned advocate Mr. S.M. Sojatwala appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, i.e. APMC, Talod has submitted that since on the date when the actual program of election was published, there were five societies, specifically brought to the notice of the authority on 4.5.2019, and as such, by virtue of Section 11(1)(iii) of the Act, two seats were to be allocated. Mr. Sojatwala has submitted that at the relevant point of time, when the information was sought in January 2019, there were two Cooperative Societies which were referred to vide communication dated 9.1.2019, but has supported the stand of the appellants by contending that on the date when the election program was declared, these appellants were eligible to be included in the voter list and substantially, has adopted the submissions of learned advocate Mr. Rana for the appellants. 5. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the facts situation which are prevailing on record, following facts cannot go unnoticed by the Court:- (1) That when the particulars were sought, the respondent No. 3 on 9.1.2019 has specifically indicated that there are two societies having general licenses in the market area. The said communication is reflecting on page 84 of the appeal compilation. From Page 34 and 35, it further appears that the appellant No. 1, i.e. The Valiyampura Vibhagiya Group Khetpedas Kharid Vechan and Processing Sahkari Mandali Ltd. has been issued license on 12.3.2019 for the period from 1.4.2018 to 31.3.2019. The license appears to have been approved on 6.3.2019 and fee for the license was paid in February 2019, giving license No. 148. So, for the entire year of 2018-19, only at the fag-end, just before few days from lapse of the year, general license came to be issued. (2) Similarly, for appellant No. 2, i.e. Ahmedpura Vibhagiya Group Khetpedash Kharid Vechan and Processing Sahkari Mandali Ltd. has been granted such license on the same day, like the appellant No. 1, and on the very same day, license fee was accepted, license came to be approved and issued by giving license No. 149 and therefore, here also, just before few days of the lapse of the year, general license for the year 2018-19 came to be issued. This is the affair with respect to subsequent year as well, which is reflecting from page 40 and 41 of the appeal compilation and therefore, within the span of few days only, simultaneous licenses have been issued for both these appellants much after the particulars which were supplied on 9.1.2019. Thus, the license for the year 2019-20 came to be issued on 14.5.2019 since the postponed election program came to be published on 24.5.2019. So, this sequence of events is well-examined not only by the authority but by learned Single Judge as well. Apart from that, for the sake of transaction, it appears that the bills of Rs. 1403/- and Rs. 1412/- came to be generated. (3) Another cash appears to have been generated on 21.5.2019, which are reflecting from page 42 onwards. So, learned Single Judge appears to have rightly appreciated, considered and examined the order passed by the authority in light of the aforesaid factual details. (4) From the record, it further appears that the assessment Class-B is assigned by the auditor, whereas issuance of license is related to joint Class-A license which is reflecting from page 34 and 35. However, be that as it may, it clearly appears from the record that the appellants have been at a much belated stage issued general license just on the eve of election which fact cannot be unnoticed. (5) So far as the other societies are concerned, which are said to have been issued with such licenses, they are three in numbers, reflecting on page 28 and they are also in the similar manner issued after earlier particulars dated 9.1.2019 furnished by the respondent No. 3. (6) The appellants were originally the Fruit and Vegetable Mandalis and therefore, they were reflecting in the Traders constituency at Serial Nos. 118 and 119 in a voter list published by the authorized officer on 10.7.2019 and as such, the grievance was voiced out was that their eligibility is ignored for the constituency of Cooperative Marketing Society, which has given rise to present controversy. (7) The aforementioned circumstances are indicating that the appellants appear to be not eligible to be included from initial stage. The relevant Rules have prescribed and elaborate procedure for holding election has been prescribed and part 3 of the Rules provides for the election of market Committee. (7) The aforementioned circumstances are indicating that the appellants appear to be not eligible to be included from initial stage. The relevant Rules have prescribed and elaborate procedure for holding election has been prescribed and part 3 of the Rules provides for the election of market Committee. Rule 4 is dealing with fixation of election, whereas Rule 5 provides for different list of voters. For the purpose of Section 11, there shall be in respect of market committee, three separate lists, which are enumerated in Rule 5, whereas Rule 7 provides for preparation of list of voters. Clause III indicates that every Cooperative marketing society shall communicate full names of members of its managing committee together with place of residence of each such member to the Authorized Officer before such date as the director by order fixed in that behalf. Provided that the date is to be so fixed shall not be later than 60 days before the date of general election. Sub-Rule 2 indicates that Authorized Officer shall within 7 days from the date fixed under Sub-Rule 1 cause to be prepared the list of voters as required by rule 5 on the basis of information received under Sub-Rule 1. So this entire process has been statutorily prescribed giving specific stages, the manner in which the licenses have been issued to the appellants, in the manner, in which, some straight transactions are reflected has rightly given an impression that with a view to inflict an artificial majority, the attempt has been made which the learned Single Judge has read between the lines and rightly arrived at the conclusion. (8) Harmonious constructions of the procedure and provisions if to be looked into, it is quite clear that there appears to be no error committed by the learned Single Judge, in any form, and that being the position, we are unable to substitute our finding on the basis of same materials. (9) These factual details were very much before the authority who passed the order on 21.6.2019 and thereafter, same were appreciated and considered by learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition on 10.7.2019. (10) Learned Single Judge has examined at length all the submissions and in light of the provisions contained under Section 11 of the APMC Act, has arrived at a specific conclusion. Since we found it just, we deem it proper to reproduce the same hereunder:- “6. (10) Learned Single Judge has examined at length all the submissions and in light of the provisions contained under Section 11 of the APMC Act, has arrived at a specific conclusion. Since we found it just, we deem it proper to reproduce the same hereunder:- “6. Before adverting to the respective contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant provision contained in section 11(1) (iii) of the APMC Act, which reads as under: “11. Constitution of market committee: (1) Every market committee shall consists of the following members, namely:- (i) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (iii) two representatives of the cooperative marketing societies situate in the market area, holding general licences, engaged in the business in conformity with their respective objects and have their last accounts audited in class A, B or C, as the case may be 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 cooperative marketing societies so situate does not exceed two, only one representative shall be so elected. 7. In the instant case, it is not disputed that pursuant to the letter dated 07.01.2019 written by the Deputy Director, AMRF to APMC, Talod, the Incharge Secretary of respondent No. 3-APMC, Talod had informed the Deputy Director vide letter dated 09.01.2019 that there were only two cooperative marketing societies holding general licences in the marketing area of APMC, Talod. Thereafter election programme was declared by the Director, AMRF on 27.05.2019 and in between period the petitioners societies obtained their licences from the APMC. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners societies had obtained their licences for the year 2018-2019 on 12.03.2019 for the period from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 and had obtained their licences for the year 2019-2020 on 14.05.2019 for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020, from which it clearly transpires that they were obtained after the letter was written by the respondent APMC on 09.01.2019 giving information to the Deputy Director that there were only two cooperative marketing societies holding licenses in the market area as mentioned therein. The respondent No. 1 therefore has observed in the impugned order that the said licences were obtained by the petitioners societies only with a view to participate in the election after the said letter dated 09.01.2019, and the petitioners had entered in to one or two transactions to show that they were engaged in the business of agricultural produces. It has also been observed that earlier the societies were registered as fruits and vegetables vendors societies, which were not included within the definition of cooperative marketing societies and the petitioners were given licences in March, 2019 for the year 2018-2019 and in May, 2019 for the year 2019-2020 only because the election of the APMC, Talod was to be held. 8. In the opinion of the Court, there being disputed questions of facts involved in the present petition and the election process having already commenced, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1.” 6. In light of the aforesaid situation prevailing on record, we are of the view that the effect of eligibility is to be considered in the context of these factual details and if we allow such interpretation in the form in which it is suggested by the appellants, same would lead to create a room for inflating the figures to generate artificial majority at a last moment, which, in our considered opinion, is not permissible. 7. As such, keeping in view the aforesaid background of fact and chronology in which an attempt is made by the appellants to be included is not appreciable and as per the original information which has been given in due compliance with statutory process prescribed under the Rules since there were two societies in the market area engaged in the business, the authority has rightly allocated one seat. 8. The aforesaid background of facts and circumstance would lead to a situation where we see no error committed by learned Single Judge, particularly when this sequence of events and circumstances suggest that general licenses deliberately have been issued at belated stage since the postponed election program was published. That conclusion appears to be on the basis of available record. 9. So, keeping in view the scope of Letters Patent Appeal, we deem it proper not to disturb or substitute the findings given by learned Single Judge. That conclusion appears to be on the basis of available record. 9. So, keeping in view the scope of Letters Patent Appeal, we deem it proper not to disturb or substitute the findings given by learned Single Judge. Since the said finding is based upon the very same material. Hence, in absence of any apparent illegality or perversity, we are not in a position to substitute the findings qua that of learned Single Judge. 10. For arriving at this conclusion, we may refer to some of the observations made by the Apex Court on the issue of scope of Letters Patent Appeal, in Para 5 of the decision in the case of Management of Narendra and Company Private Limited vs. Workmen of Narendra and Company, (2016) 3 SCC 340 . Since we have considered the same, we deem it proper to reproduce the same hereunder:- “5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records had come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without any further material before the Division Bench. The Appellate Bench ought to have noticed that the statement of MW-3 is itself part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.” 11. In any case, the election is already over and essential grievance is around the issue of non-inclusion of the appellants in the voter list, same can be agitated by the appellants before appropriate forum in view of the observations made in the decision delivered by the Full Bench of this Court. Relevant extract of the same in a very summarized manner, we reproduce hereunder, which is taken out from Para 10 of the recent decision of learned Single Judge reported in the case of Jaganathpuri Cooperative Service Society Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, 2019 (2) GLH 325 : “10. Relevant extract of the same in a very summarized manner, we reproduce hereunder, which is taken out from Para 10 of the recent decision of learned Single Judge reported in the case of Jaganathpuri Cooperative Service Society Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, 2019 (2) GLH 325 : “10. Even otherwise as held by the Full Bench in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. R.D. Rohit, Authorized Officer and Cooperative Officer (Marketing) 2006 (1) GCD 211 (Civil Application No. 2489 of 2005 and Another, dated 27.04.2005), exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters’ list could not be said to be an extraordinary circumstance warranting interference in Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 12. In light of the aforesaid background of facts, since we are satisfied that close scrutiny of the record is leading to a situation where we find no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal, as a result of this, we see no error committed by learned Single Judge accordingly, we hereby dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal, leaving it open to the appellants to agitate the basic grievance before the appropriate forum, if so advised. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. 13. Since the main Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed, no orders are required to be passed on the Civil Applications. Accordingly, the Civil Applications stand disposed of.