JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution India is filed by the petitioners with following prayers:- “15(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure-F) passed by the respondent No.3-Election officer. (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and to command the respondent no.3 and/or respondent no.4 from correcting the final list of voters affecting change in the name of representative o the petitioner no.1 society which appears at sr. no. 69 in the final list of voters by discarding the name of the respondent no.6 and to order to insert the name of the petitioner no.2 as the representative of the petitioner no.1 society in the final list of voters dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure-G.) (C) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to command the respondent Nos.3 and 5 to accept the nomination form of the petitioner no.2 as a candidate of Election Division No.11 of Diodar for contesting the election of the members of the Executive Committee members o the respondent no.4 Union in ensuing election to beheld according to the election programme issued by respondent no.5 herein under Rule 16 and to consider such nomination form in accordance with law; (D) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court will be pleased to restrain the respondents, their agents, and servants from preventing the petitioner no.2 from filling his nomination form as contesting candidate from the electorate Division No.11 of the ensuing election of the Managing Committee of the respondent no.4 Union. (E) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court will be pleased to stay and or suspend the further operation of the impugned order dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure-F).” 2. Essentially the case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.6 does not represent the will of the petitioner society to be representative of the petitioner society in the elections of the respondent No.5-Banaskantha District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Limited (for short “Union”), which is a classified society. 3. Essentially the case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.6 does not represent the will of the petitioner society to be representative of the petitioner society in the elections of the respondent No.5-Banaskantha District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Limited (for short “Union”), which is a classified society. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner society in its meeting held on 24.06.2020 passed a resolution and appointed petitioner No.2 as its authorized representative. At the same time, the respondent No.6 also forwarded another resolution as if the petitioner society has appointed respondent No.6 to be the representative of the petitioner society in the ensuing elections of members of the Board of Directors of union. 4. Under the communication dated 24.08.2020, from the In-charge Managing Director of the union, the petitioners came to know that the name of the representative of the petitioner No.1-society is not included in the provisional list of and the reason behind it that the two resolutions have been received both appointing petitioner No.2 and respondent No.6-respectively. The Election Officer had called upon the petitioner No.2 as well as the respondent No.6 for hearing the objections and fixed the matter on 08.09.2020 and in the meantime, on 01.09.2020, it was also communicated that the provisional list has been objected by one independent Mafatbhai Vastusinh Dabhi. The petitioner No.2 has produced all the necessary particulars including the representations as well as the affidavits of the members by which the name of the petitioner No.2 has been ratified to be the representative of the petitioner society. Despite this, by the impugned order dated 21.09.2020, the respondent No.3 has accepted the name of the respondent No.6 as representative of the petitioner society and immediately final list of voters came to be published wherein the name of the respondent No.6 appeared as a voter on behalf of petitioner society in place of the name of the petitioner No.2. 5. Learned advocate Mr. P.S.Champaneri appearing for the petitioners submitted that while passing the impugned order, the respondent has failed to consider the evidence produced by the petitioner No.2 in support of his claim to represent the petitioner society. No reasons are assigned as to why the respondent No.3 has discarded the name of the petitioner No.2 and accepted the name of the respondent No.6. No reasons are assigned as to why the respondent No.3 has discarded the name of the petitioner No.2 and accepted the name of the respondent No.6. Learned advocate thereafter, submitted that Rule 5(2) of the Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1982 (for short Election Rules, 1982) provides for situation where the society desirous to change the name of its representative and when the petitioner society came to know about the name of respondent No.6, immediately the application was moved as per Rule 5(2) of the Election Rules, 1982, wherein also the fresh resolution passed on 22.09.2020 was forwarded with a forwarding letter dated 23.09.2020. Considering the last date being 22.09.2020 as per Rule 5(2) of the Election Rules, 1982, the sixth day prior to 29.09.2020 being 23.09.2020, the application under Rule 5(2) of the Election Rules, 1982 was well within the time and therefore, even as per Rule 5(2) of the Election Rules, 1982, the petitioner No.2 is the correct representative of the petitioner society. It is strongly contended that the Secretary has misused the resolution book by keeping the same in his custody and by misusing such resolution book has sent the name of respondent No.6 as the representative of the petitioner society. It is submitted that if there is a dispute as to the representative of the petitioner society, then such dispute is covered under Section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and therefore, has to be decided on the basis of evidence by the Board of Nominees Court, whereas present respondent No.3 has taken a decision as if he is exercising powers under Section 96 of the Act. 6. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to various affidavits purportedly by the members of the petitioner society dated 06.07.2020 stating therein that by resolution No.3 of meeting dated 24.06.2020, the name of the petitioner No.2 was selected as representative of the petitioner society. In the aforesaid affidavits, that if any other resolution or affidavit is found then the same is to be treated as cancelled after the present affidavit. Therefore, it is submitted that even as per the wish of the members of petitioner society, the petitioner No.2 is the representative of the petitioner society. 7. In the aforesaid affidavits, that if any other resolution or affidavit is found then the same is to be treated as cancelled after the present affidavit. Therefore, it is submitted that even as per the wish of the members of petitioner society, the petitioner No.2 is the representative of the petitioner society. 7. Learned advocate has thereafter relied upon the decision in the case of Election Commission of India v/s. Ashokkumar and others, reported in 2000(8) SCC 216 to contend that even where the election program is declared, this Court under the writ jurisdiction can interfere in limited manner so as not to disturb the ongoing process. Meaning thereby, that the impugned decision can be subjected to judicial review without hampering with the ongoing election process and the facts of this case warrant the judicial review of the decision as the impugned decision is virtually left the petitioner society without correct representative. 8. As against this learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order has exercised the powers conferred under Election Rules, 1982 and therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed is without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 having received two sets of resolutions for the same purpose, has issued notice to both petitioner No.2 as well as respondent No.6 calling upon them to submit their explanation and evidence in support and therefore, procedurally also opportunity of hearing and principles of natural justice have been followed and therefore, no interference is required more particularly when the election program is declared. 8.1. It is also submitted that on one hand, the respondent No.6 is claiming to the representative and on the other hand, the petitioner No.2 is claiming to be the representative, this is a question of fact which can be decided only on the basis of evidence and therefore, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. 9. Learned senior advocate Mr. B.S.Patel with learned advocate Mr.Manish Shah, appearing for respondent No.6 submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts inasmuch as application No.S.R.No.14 of 2020 came to be rejected by a reasoned orders. The petitioner No.2 has not placed the order of rejection on record of this Court as the same is very relevant. The petitioner No.2 has not placed the order of rejection on record of this Court as the same is very relevant. It is submitted that what is challenged before this Court is an order below S.R.No.6 of 2020, wherein the name of the respondent No.6 is accepted as representative of the petitioner society. It is submitted that nowhere in the petition, the petitioners have claimed that petitioner No.2 is desirous to file nomination in the ensuing election. 9.1. It is submitted that even the application under Rule 5(2) of the Election Rules, 1982 has been rejected however, the said order is not produced on record. Learned senior advocate has taken this Court to the resolution which is passed in support of application under Rule 5(2) of the Election Rules, 1982 to submit that the language of the resolution itself does not suggest that the said resolution is passed for the purpose of replacing the name of respondent No.6 as a representative of the petitioner society. Had it been the case the language of the resolution would have clearly indicated about the error in earlier resolution to recommend the name of respondent No.6 as the representative of the union which requires to be altered in view of Section 5(2) of the Election Rules, 1982. It is submitted that the Secretary has concocted the entire proceedings of the executive committee meeting and the resolution therein. The respondent No.6 who is the Vice Chairman of the society is not even made aware of the agenda of 22.09.2020 and therefore, the resolution on the basis of which the application under Rule 5(2) of the Election Rules, 1982 is filed is without any agenda being circulated and therefore, cannot be relied upon. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of Shaji K. Joseph v/s. V.Viswanath and others, reported in 2016(4) SCC 429 to submit that the election process has commenced and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the ongoing election process. 10. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the judgment in case of Shaji K. Joseph (Supra), cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. Moreover, the said judgment is by two Judges of the Supreme Court, whereas reliance placed by the petitioner in case of Election Commission of India (Supra), is by the bench consisting of three Judges. 11. Moreover, the said judgment is by two Judges of the Supreme Court, whereas reliance placed by the petitioner in case of Election Commission of India (Supra), is by the bench consisting of three Judges. 11. The Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The respondent No.5 is the Milk Producers’ Union and the election of the Board of Directors of the union is in question. By order dated 24.08.2020 by the Collector, Banaskantha, the respondent No.3 was appointed as election officer and by another order dated 25.08.2020, the respondent No.3 was vested with all the powers and authority of the Collector for the purpose of election of the Board of Directors of the union. It appears that by communication dated 24.08.2020, the in-charge Managing Director of the union communicated to the Secretary of the petitioner society that on behalf of the petitioner society the name of the representative of the petitioner society in the provisional list of voters is not being included as the union has received two resolutions declaring two different persons as its representatives namely petitioner No.2 and respondent No.6. As a result, it appears that two separate applications came to be filed; one by Mafatbhai Vastusinh Dabhi being S.R.No.14 of 2020 and another by the respondent No.6 being S.R.No.6 of 2020. It is the contention of the respondent No.6 that S.R.No.14 of 2020 was in connection that the name of the petitioner No.2 be considered as representative and that application has been rejected to suggest that the name of the petitioner No.2 as a representative of the petitioner society stands rejected. This submission has not been controverted by the petitioners nor the order of respondent No.3 below S.R.No. 14 of 2020 is produced on record. The order under challenge is below S.R.No.6 of 2020 which is the application for accepting the name of respondent No.6 to be representative of the petitioner society. It is in this application that the impugned order has been passed. The order under challenge is below S.R.No.6 of 2020 which is the application for accepting the name of respondent No.6 to be representative of the petitioner society. It is in this application that the impugned order has been passed. This Court is of the view that as the order below S.R.No.14 of 2020 being an independent order to the effect of treating the petitioner No.2 not to be the representative of the petitioner society stands on its own merits and without the same not being challenged or set aside, this Court would not interfere with the impugned order, to render the reasoned order passed below S.R.No.14 of 2020 as ineffective, without the same being brought on record of this Court or without the same being challenged or set aside. 12. The another aspect of the matter being a resolution passed on 22.09.2020. In support of the application under Rule 5(2) of the Election Rules, 1982, it is now submitted that such application dated 22.09.2020 (sic.) (Annexure-G) page-101, the same also stands rejected. The order of the same is also not produced on record. The Court has taken into consideration the resolution dated 22.09.2020 (Page-103). The language of resolution No.3 does not refer to correction of the name of the respondent No.6 and to substitute the name by the name of the petitioner No.2 and that such passing of resolution is necessitated to support the application under Rule 5(2) of the Election Rules, 1982. Moreover, submission made on behalf of respondent No.6-the Vice Chairman of the society that no agenda was circulated with regards to the meeting to be convened on 22.09.2020 at 8:30 by the petitioner society. As such contention was not being controverted, the Court is not inclined to believe that resolution dated 22.09.2020 can be relied upon. 12.1. Therefore, the Court finds that in absence of the reasoned order passed below S.R.No.14 of 2020, as well as decision under Rule 5(2) of the Election Rules, 1982 on record, the petition lacks necessary particulars to substantiate the case of the petitioners warranting interference of this Court in an ongoing election process. 13. The Court has taken into consideration the copies of the affidavits produced before this Court from page-34 onwards which were the documents in support of the application at Annexure-D by the petitioner society. The affidavits are broadly provided into two forms. 13. The Court has taken into consideration the copies of the affidavits produced before this Court from page-34 onwards which were the documents in support of the application at Annexure-D by the petitioner society. The affidavits are broadly provided into two forms. One form of affidavit indicates that the resolution No.3 was passed on 24.06.2020 was in favour of the petitioner No.2 to be representative of the petitioner society and if any signature is taken on record on any resolution or consent or affidavit in this connection after the date of the affidavit i.e. 06.07.2020 to be understood to have been cancelled. Another set of affidavit which is dated 30.08.2020 refers to two meetings both dated 24.06.2020 and 26.06.2020, wherein in para-5 of affidavit it is stated that by deception the signatures of such members have been procured. In the opinion of the Court, that two sets of affidavits by members are subject matter of appreciation of evidence however, suffice it to observe that the relevant consideration for the respondent No.3 would be the resolution passed by the society which by the impugned order, the respondent No.3 has accepted after taking into consideration the evidence on record as the resolution passed in favour of the respondent No.6 to be representing the petitioner society. 14. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shaji K. Joseph (Supra), wherein the Apex Court has held as under :- “14. In our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with the process of election especially when the process of election had started upon publication of the election program on 27th January, 2011 and more particularly when an alternative statutory remedy was available to Respondent no.1 by way of referring the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations. So far as the issue with regard to eligibility of Respondent no.1 for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie it appears that Respondent no.1 could contest the election, we do not propose to go into the said issue because, in our opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without court’s order. Very often, for frivolous reasons candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election. 15. This Court, in Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (supra) has held that once the election process starts, it would not be proper for the courts to interfere with the election process. Similar view was taken by this Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (supra). 16. Thus, in view of the aforestated settled legal position, the High Court should not have interfered with the process of election. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and direct that the result of the election should be published. We are sure that due to interim relief granted by this Court, Respondent no.1 must not have been permitted to contest the election. It would be open to Respondent no.1 to approach the Central Government for referring the dispute, if he thinks it proper to do so. No issue with regard to limitation will be raised if Respondent no.1 initiates an action under Section 5 of the Act within four weeks from today.” 15. In case of Election Commission of India (Supra), in para-32, the Apex Court has held as under:- “32. No issue with regard to limitation will be raised if Respondent no.1 initiates an action under Section 5 of the Act within four weeks from today.” 15. In case of Election Commission of India (Supra), in para-32, the Apex Court has held as under:- “32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove:- 1) If an election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections. 2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to calling in question an election if it sub-serves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election. 3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law. 4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the Court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court. 5) The Court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The Court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. 5) The Court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The Court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the courts indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the Court would act with reluctance and shall not act except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material.” 16. In the facts of the present case, the Court is of the view that the issue though has been decided by the impugned order of respondent No.3 reflects upon the representation of the petitioner society in the election of the union and for preparation of the voters list, it cannot be said that interference with the impugned order would not insert, obstruct or delay the progress of election proceedings and that such an interference is not merely to correct or smoothen the progress of election proceedings to remove obstacle or to preserver vital piece of evidence. Moreover, nothing is pleaded regarding malafide exercised of powers or that the respondent No.3 has acted in breach of any law. The case of the petitioners therefore, does not fall in any of the parameters prescribed by the Apex Court in judgment of Election Commission of India (supra). 17. Lastly, there is no dispute that the election process in connection with the election of the Board of Directors of the union that has already commenced and therefore, the dispute raised by the petitioners now appears to be covered under Section 145U of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. 18. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the petitioners have failed to make out any case of interference in an ongoing election process more particularly in absence of the necessary particulars with regards to the decision in S.R.No.14 of 2020 and decision of respondent No.3 below application under Rule 5(2) of the Election Rules, 1982. The petition therefore, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The petition therefore, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No orders as to cost.