Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 836 (GUJ)

JASMATBHAI PREMJIBAHI GABANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2020-10-06

ASHUTOSH J.SHASTRI

body2020
ORDER : 1. Both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed for the purpose of assailing the decision delivered by the respondent No.3 dated 4.9.2020 and since the facts are almost similar and submissions on legal contentions are also exactly on the same line, according to request of learned advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, both these petitions are taken up together for their disposal by treating Special Civil Application No.11774 of 2020 as a lead matter and substantial facts are taken from this lead matter. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an agriculturist and is residing at the address mentioned in the cause title and holds agricultural land at village Khopala. The petitioner further states that the Committee is duly constituted under the provisions of Section 5 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1963 (‘the Act’ for short) and is consisting of eight agriculturists, two representatives of the Marketing Cooperative Societies, and four traders, more and above, one nominated by local Self Government within which the jurisdiction, the Principal Market yard is situated and two nominees of the Government and the term of the market committee is of five years. It is the case of the petitioner that the election of the members of the committee is required to be held by the Director or any officer authorized by him and in view of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act. Eight agriculturists whose names are enlisted in the list of voters published by the Election Commission of India for which the market area shall be selected by the members of the Managing Committee and the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society dispensing the agriculture credit in the market area, whereas four members to be elected in prescribed manner, from amongst themselves by traders holding general license who have traded in full conformity with the terms and conditions of the license in previous year and fees payable have not remained unpaid, whereas two representatives of the cooperative marketing society situated in the market area holding general license and engaged in the business in conformity with their respective objects and have their last account audited in class A, B or C to be elected from amongst the members of such society by members of the managing committee of such society. Clause (v) and (vi) of subsection (1) of Section 11 provide for nomination. 3. According to the petitioner, the State in exercise of powers conferred under Section 69 of the Act framed the Rules, named as Gujarat Agricultural produce Markets Rules, 1969 and precisely, Rule 3 of the said Rule provides for election of the market committee, Rule 5 of the Rules provides for different list of voters, Rule 6 provides for qualification of voter, Rule 7 of the Rules provides for preparation of the list of voters for general election, whereas Rule 8 provides for provisional and final publication of the voters’ list, whereas Rule 10 provides for fixing stages of election. The grievance of the petitioner is that the private respondents who are named have been repeated in this Co-operative Societies which are named in para 9 of the petition and thereby by mentioning relevant bye-laws of the respective societies, a contention appears to have been raised that they are repeated in various co-operative societies. Where few examples have been given that father of the sitting Chairman has six sons and there are duplication of names in the voters’ list. 4. According to the petitioner, the Director issued a notification for holding election of members of the committee since the term of the outgoing committee is expiring and as such, the respondent No.2 issued a notification on 28.7.2020, whereby the respondent No.3 has been appointed as authorized officer and in view of that, the authorized officer has invited the names of voters of different constituencies. The respondent No.2 further vide his notification dated 28.7.2020 declared the election program and instructed the authorized officer to issue instruction for preparation of the preliminary list of voters and 11.8.2020 was fixed for receiving the names of the proposed voters. Last date of receiving the names of the proposed voters was 17.8.2020, whereas 31.8.2020 was the date fixed for publication of the preliminary voter list, whereas 5.9.2020 was fixed for deciding the objections received against exclusion or inclusion of the names of the preliminary voters list. Last date of receiving such objection was prescribed as 12.9.2020 and the date of publication of the final list has been fixed on 15.9.2020 and after carrying out this process, the election is fixed n 28.10.2020. 5. Last date of receiving such objection was prescribed as 12.9.2020 and the date of publication of the final list has been fixed on 15.9.2020 and after carrying out this process, the election is fixed n 28.10.2020. 5. The petitioner aggrieved by some inclusion of names, alleged irregularities and fraud being practiced and found raging of the election from initial stage itself since the names of respondent Nos.3 to 28 have been repeated in the constituency of the agricultural and also in the constituency of the marketing co-operative society and thereby has alleged fraud being practiced by giving few examples appears to have been submitted objection before the authorized officer on 28.8.2020. These objections according to the petitioner, have not been considered in its true perspective by the respondent No.3 being the authorized officer, and by way of the order dated 4.9.2020, an order came to be passed, whereby the objections raised by the petitioner came to be rejected, mainly on the premise that the issues raised are not within the purview of the jurisdiction and the authority of the respondent No.3 and it is this order dated 4.9.2020, challenged in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5.1 The petition appears to have been affirmed rather prepared on 15.9.2020 and presented on 23.9.2020. When this petition was placed on 24.9.2020, it was informed by learned advocate that another cognate matter, being Special Civil Application No.19747 of 2020 is not placed along with this, despite note having been filed and as such, as per the request of learned advocate, the office was instructed to place the present matter along with said cognate matter on 29.9.2020. On 29.9.2020, when the matter is taken up, learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya had submitted that though the order was passed and the note was filed long back to tag the matter, the same is not listed by the office. As a result of this, again, a request was made. Hence, the matter is listed then on 1.10.2020. On 29.9.2020, when the matter is taken up, learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya had submitted that though the order was passed and the note was filed long back to tag the matter, the same is not listed by the office. As a result of this, again, a request was made. Hence, the matter is listed then on 1.10.2020. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the cognate matter was placed along with the present matter but, it was categorically mentioned by the office that learned advocate for the petitioner has not removed the office objection in the said matter and the office objections have been removed only on 28.9.2020 and with this background of facts, the present petition has come up for consideration before this Court, in which learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya for the petitioner has argued at length, whereas learned AGP Mr. Bharat Vyas on advance copy assisted the Court. 6. In Special Civil Application No.12055 of 2020, the petitioner who is a son of the original objector, who died on 2.9.2020, had raised an objection in writing before the respondent No.3 authority, being the authorized officer, and has agitated that the name of the objector and father of the petitioner is not included as a voter in the list of voters, and hence, the objection was raised, but unfortunately, the respondent No.3 did not consider the objection and rejected the same. Similar is the grievance raised here also that the authorized officer was duty bound to incorporate the names by making a detailed inquiry and as such, the order is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires. It has also been agitated like in the lead matter that the respondent No.3 cannot close his eyes and add all names forwarded to him by the sitting Chairman of the committee, who is respondent No.4 in both these petitions, though not qualified for the purpose of inclusion in the list of voters. It has been contended that even if there are no objections raised then also, it is the duty of the respondent No.3 to scrutinize each and every entry in the list of voters and shall satisfy himself about the eligibility and qualification of the persons before inclusion in the list of voters and that having not been done, the respondent No.3 has failed in discharge of his duty and as such, the petition is brought before this Court. It appears from the record that this petition challenging the decision dated 4.9.2020 appears to have been prepared on 15.9.2020 and after removing the office objections, presented on 29.9.2020 and learned counsel Mr. B.M. Mangukiya appearing for the petitioner has requested that all the submissions which are made in the lead petition be treated as a part of submission of the present petition and appropriate decision be taken. With this background, this Court upon request of learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya, heard both the matters at length. 7. Learned advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya has contended that several discrepancies rather illegalities have been crept in preparing the voter list. It has been contended that though specific objections have been raised pointing out the details, the authorized officer by a cryptic order has rejected the petitioner’s objection which exercise of jurisdiction is thoroughly uncalled for. It has been submitted that the private respondents' names have been repeated and included even in the revised preliminary voter list published by the respondent authority on 5.9.2020. Though the names of the respondents have been included in the list of Village Raniyala, the respondents are not either residents of the said village nor residents of any other villages as set out in the memo of this petition and therefore, a contention is raised that it was expected by the respondent authority to examine the issue since the respondents are not qualified to be admitted as members of the other cooperative societies. It is submitted vehemently that no law can be read in isolation so as to perpetuate fraud. This illegality has been crept which has not been corrected by the authority, which apparently reflects non-application of mind. On the contrary, according to Mr. Mangukiya, the respondent No.4 is the sitting Chairman since about four terms and the intention of the legislature that there shall not be perpetuation of the power in the committee and as such, keeping this concept in mind, even the Amended Act has provided that no person shall continue to be the office bearer in the committee more than two terms and knowing fully well, now the respondent No.4 wants to see that his son to be installed as the Chairman and Mr. Humbal could be able to rule the committee from backbone and that is the reason why he has multiplied the names of his family members in the revised preliminary list of voters and unfortunately, the respondent authority refused to adjudicate the issue raised by the petitioner. 7.1. According to Mr. Mangukiya, the petitioner has not approached the respondent authorized officer to remove the said persons from the membership of the executive committee of the Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society dispensing the agricultural credit in the market area. Even if their names are there as members of the executive committee of such cooperative societies, their names cannot be included in the list of voters, so as to prevent fraud, no law of the country would permit to commit the fraud and according to Mr. Mangukiya, it is the settled position of law that one who commits the fraud cannot be permitted to harvest the yield of fraud. It has further been contended that if the respondents’ names have been fraudulently submitted, the respondent No.3 was under an obligation to investigate and is answerable to perpetuation of fraud and therefore, when the respondent No.3 has failed to discharge his duties and closed his eyes in total ignorance of the fraud, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition. It has further been contended that it is the duty cast upon the respondent No.3 to prepare the revised preliminary list of voters which shall be free from any fraud, even if no objection is raised before him in relation to any entry and therefore, irrespective of the fact that as to whether any objection is received or not, the respondent No.3 shall have an obligation to verify, which duty is miserably failed from being performed. Few examples have been given in paragraph Nos.23 to 27 of the petition and thereby, Mr. Mangukiya has contended that the order passed by the respondent is non est in the eye of law. 7.2. Learned advocate Mr. Few examples have been given in paragraph Nos.23 to 27 of the petition and thereby, Mr. Mangukiya has contended that the order passed by the respondent is non est in the eye of law. 7.2. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has further submitted that principle of finality cannot be pressed into service in case of a fraud to a person who obtained fruits of the fraud and is to be thrown out of the power at any time, that is what held by the Apex Court as stated in para 37 of the petition and thereby has reiterated that a person cannot be a voter in dual capacity, namely the agriculturist and the trader as well, by giving an example that in past, several commissions have been appointed including Royal Commission to find out the ways and means to eradicate the nuisance of middlemen interference when it was found that cultivators suffered from many handicap and cultivators were exploited by middlemen who played a prominent role in sale transactions. To substantiate this, an averment has also been made in para 37 that, the first Royal Commission came to be appointed in 1972 and this problem was examined by UNO and has also passed a resolution by holding that all exercise would be futile unless mechanism is found out to see that cultivators receive remunerative price and consumers get agricultural produce within their ability to pay and by giving this principle by way of an example, a contention is raised that Section 11 of the Act provides that traders cannot be elected as Chairman of the market committee. It has further been contended that definition of Agriculturist has been given in Clause (2) of Section 2 of the Act which states that a person cannot be an agriculturist who is a trader or broker in agricultural produce, even though he may be engaged in production of yield of agricultural produce. It has further been contended that definition of Agriculturist has been given in Clause (2) of Section 2 of the Act which states that a person cannot be an agriculturist who is a trader or broker in agricultural produce, even though he may be engaged in production of yield of agricultural produce. The petitioner would submit that many of the respondents are holding license of traders, their names also appear in the list of traders constituency and if these are the persons who are holding license of traders, they cannot be agriculturists and if they cannot be agriculturists, they cannot be included in the revised preliminary list of voters of agricultural constituency and as such, a fraud is being practiced which is not visualized by the respondent No.3 and as such, has failed in discharge of his duty to make an inquiry and hence, the order passed by the authority is absolutely unjust, arbitrary and suffers from serious vice of non-application of mind. The reason, according to Mr. Mangukiya, which has been given that the authorized officer that he has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this issue, is impermissible and not valid, especially when the fraud is apparently visible on record. By raising these contentions, learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has requested the Court to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. 7.3. When it was pointed out to learned advocate for the petitioner to cite any decision on the issue involved in the petition, if he wishes, in that case, learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has submitted that since this is a first principle, no decision needs to be produced, however there are several, according to learned advocate. With these submissions, no further points have been canvassed. 8. As against the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Bharat Vyas has submitted that he has gone through the petition and having examined, has drawn the attention to an election program reflecting on page 77 and thereby has submitted that since the program of election is set to motion, no interference may be made to interject the said process of election. Bharat Vyas has submitted that he has gone through the petition and having examined, has drawn the attention to an election program reflecting on page 77 and thereby has submitted that since the program of election is set to motion, no interference may be made to interject the said process of election. It has been submitted that the order in question in the petition is an order dated 4.9.2020 and the petition itself is submitted only on 23.9.2020 which is much after even the date of final publication of the list of voters and therefore, at this stage, interference would cause serious prejudice to the process of election. 8.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Vyas has submitted that what has been agitated basically in the petition is the inclusion of the names of the private respondents in the list of voters and the question of their inclusion, on the premise that they are not qualified according to learned counsel for the petitioner. The question whether these respondents are qualified or not to be admitted as members of other co-operative societies and thereby to be included list in the voters is not within the domain of and within the scope of authority of respondent No.3 and as such, though apparently, the order seems to be a brief order but the reason which has been assigned is perfectly justified which is reflecting on the page 93 of the petition compilation and therefore, the authorized officer has acted well within the scope of his authority while rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner. The qualificatory criteria is not to be adjudicated upon by the authorized officer where his scope is very limited to make a summary inquiry and therefore, according to Mr. Vyas, the order is passed perfectly in consonance with the scope of authority defined and prescribed by the relevant Statute. That being the position, no interference may be made. The qualificatory criteria is not to be adjudicated upon by the authorized officer where his scope is very limited to make a summary inquiry and therefore, according to Mr. Vyas, the order is passed perfectly in consonance with the scope of authority defined and prescribed by the relevant Statute. That being the position, no interference may be made. It has further been submitted that the issue whether the respondents are qualified to be a part of the list of voters is a matter of adjudication and examination of the factual data which may not be examined at length by the authorized officer and for that, a separate statutory forum is available to ventilate the grievance and as such, when a specific remedy is available under the Statute, it is not open for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. On the contrary, there are several disputed questions of fact involved, adjudication of which is impermissible at the behest of the authorized officer’s scope of inquiry and the law is well propounded that the jurisdiction of the authorized officer to make an inquiry is very much circumscribed and as such, simply because the order is passed in brief, same cannot be said to be invalid since the reason assigned is otherwise a valid reason, cogent enough to answer the grievance of the petitioner. Hence, the petition, being merit-less, be dismissed as per the request of learned Assistant Government Pleader. 8..2. Additionally, to substantiate this contention, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Vyas has drawn attention of this Court to three decisions delivered by the coordinate Bench of this Court and submitted that there is a consistent practice on the basis of well propounded proposition of law that in view of the fact that specific remedy is available to ventilate the grievance, the Court should not interject the process of election once it has been declared. This inclusion and exclusion of voters in the list is an issue which can be gone into in an election petition and hence, that being the remedy available, at this stage, according to Mr. Vyas, if any interference is made, the same would frustrate the very process of election which has already been began and scheduled long back by virtue of specific program declared in accordance with law. Vyas, if any interference is made, the same would frustrate the very process of election which has already been began and scheduled long back by virtue of specific program declared in accordance with law. This principle has been reiterated according to learned Assistant Government Pleader Vyas in the recent decision declared by another Coordinate Bench dated 26.8.2020 and by referring to these three following decisions, a submission is made to dismiss the petition. (1) Decision dated 23.9.2016 in Special Civil Application No.14344 of 2016; (2) Decision dated 19.10.2016 in Special Civil Application No.16958 of 2016; (3) Decision dated 26.8.2020 in Special Civil Application No.10040 of 2020. 9. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the basic submission of learned advocate for the petitioner, a central issue involved in the petition is about inclusion of the names of the respondents in the list of voters, which according to the petitioner, is not permissible and fraudulent. The instances have been mentioned in the objections to raise the grievance, but for that purpose, whether it is within the domain of the authorized officer to adjudicate or not, is a question for consideration of this Court since the authorized officer has clearly stated that it is not within his domain to adjudicate. For this purpose, a perusal if made to the relevant provision of the Act and the Rules, it appears that the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act has invested specific power in a separate to decide various issues related to examine as to whether a person is an agriculturist or not, whether any person is a resident in a town, or village or group of villages, or whether two or more villages, shall be considered to form a group, or whether any person belongs to any particular tribe, class or occupation, all these issues are the matter of adjudication and examination which are outside the purview of scope of authority of Authorized Officer. The Authorized Officer is supposed to make a summary inquiry when the voters list is being presented before him. 10. Part 3 of the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 deals with election of market committee. Rule 4 relates to fixation of date of election and Rule 5 deals with different list of voters. Rule 6 indicates persons qualified to vote, which reads as under:- 6. 10. Part 3 of the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 deals with election of market committee. Rule 4 relates to fixation of date of election and Rule 5 deals with different list of voters. Rule 6 indicates persons qualified to vote, which reads as under:- 6. Persons qualified to vote.- A person whose name is entered in & list of voters shall be qualified to vote at an election to which the list of voters relates, unless he has ceased to hold the capacity in which his name was entered in such list. Rule 7 deals with preparation of the list of voters for general election, which also deserves to be quoted hereinafter:- 7. Preparation of list of voters for general election.- (1) Whenever a general election to market committee is to be held:-. (i) every Co-operative society dispensing agricultural credit in the market area shall communicate the full names of the members of its managing committee together with the place of residence of each members; (ii) the market committee shall communicate the full names of the traders holding general licenses in the market area together with the place of or residence of each such trader; and (iii) every Co-operative Marketing Society shall communicate the full names of the members of its managing committee together with the place of residence of each such member. To the authorized officer before such date as the Director may by order fix in that behalf. Provided that the date to be so fixed shall not be later than sixty days before the date of the general election. (2) The authorized officer she“ within seven days from the date fixed under sub rule (1) cause to be prepared the lists of voters as required by rule 5 on the basis of the information received under sub-rule (1) and, if necessary, after making such inquiry as he may deem fit. (3) Every list of voters shah show the full name, place of residence and the serial number of each voter. Rule 9 deals with the list of voters by election, whereas Rule 10 deals with fixing stages of election. 11. (3) Every list of voters shah show the full name, place of residence and the serial number of each voter. Rule 9 deals with the list of voters by election, whereas Rule 10 deals with fixing stages of election. 11. The aforesaid Rules which are relevant to the issue, indicate that Rule 6 is indicating that a person whose name is entered into the list of voters shall be qualified to vote at an election, to which the list of voters relates, unless he has ceased to hold the capacity in which his name was entered in such list. Whereas, sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 indicates that the authorized officer shall within 7 days from the date fixed cause to be prepared the lists of voters as required by Rule 5 on the basis of the information received under sub-rule (1) and if necessary, after making such inquiry, as he may deem fit. Now, this sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 is investing power in the authorized officer to make an inquiry as he may deem fit but this will not travel beyond the authority to adjudicate and decide the issues which are to be decided by a separate authority as indicated above. Whether a person is an agriculturist or non-agriculturist, whether he is a resident of the town or village or credit of the village or whether he is resident of two or more villages, all these issues are to be gone into not by the authorized officer and therefore, on the basis of the information which is to be passed upon him under sub-rule (1), the list of voters to be prepared. Now, if in this process, any grievance is raised by a person or aggrieved by the decision of the authorized officer, the rules have a specific statutory mechanism to assail the same and for that purpose, Rule 28 of the Rules deals with determination of validity of the election and whether a person is entitled to cast vote or not or whether he was rightly included or excluded in the list of voters are the issues, which can be examined under Rule 28, which reads as under:- “28. Determination of validity of election.- (1) If the validity of any election of a member of the Market Committee is brought in question by any person qualified either to be elected or to vote at the election to which such question refers such person may, within seven days after the date of the declaration of the result of the election, apply in writing:- (a) to the Director, if the election has been conducted by a person authorized by the Director, to perform the function of an Election Officer, and (b) to the State Government if the election has been conducted by the Director as an Election officer and (2) On receipt of an application under sub-rule (1), the Director, or the State Government, as the case may be, shall, after giving an o9pportunity to the applicant, to be heard and after making such inquiry as he or it, as the case may be, deems fit, pass an order confirming or amending the declared result of elections or setting the election aside and such order shall be final. If the Director or the State Government, as the case may be sets aside the election, a date shall be forthwith fixed, and the necessary steps be taken for holding a fresh election for filling up the vacancy of such member.” 12. The aforesaid relevant extracts of the provisions and the Rules would lead to a situation that this issue which has been raised by the petitioner about the fraud being practiced about the persons have been included at the behest of the existing Chairman or where the persons, i.e. the respondents, who are included in the list of voters are qualified or not are the related issues which can be gone into by an appropriate authority and as such, at this stage of proceedings, when the election program is already set into motion, upon publication of it, whether same can be interjected or not is an incidental issue before this Court in the present proceedings, more particularly when the order dated 4.9.2020 is assailed by presenting a petition only on 23.9.2020. On this issue, several decisions delivered by various Coordinate Benches have clearly spelt out that it is a trite law that the Writ Court would not interfere once election process is underway. On this issue, several decisions delivered by various Coordinate Benches have clearly spelt out that it is a trite law that the Writ Court would not interfere once election process is underway. By analyzing several decisions of this Court as well of the Apex Court, the Coordinate Bench in a petition, being Special Civil Application No.16958 of 2016, on 19.1.2016 has clearly answered this issue and since the Court has an advantage of the relevant observations contained in the said decision, the Court would like to reproduce the same hereinafter:- 5.1 It is trite that writ court would not interfere once the election process is underway. This dictum, well-settled by caravan of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as by this Court, is true whether it is elections to local body or elections of any democratic domestic body such as cooperative society. It is also well-settled that all election disputes relating to alleged irregularities or illegalities in course of the election have to be postponed for their solution, to be tried and settled after the elections are over in accordance with the machinery provided for resolution of such disputes. 5.2 The well-settled proposition that the Court should not interfere with the election process and the remedy could be availed only after the elections are over, has been holding the field right from the decision in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs Returning Officer [ AIR 1952 SC 64 ] and caravan of other decisions, of which a more recent decision in Shaji K. Joseph Vs V. Viswanath [ (2016) 4 SCC 429 ] may be referred to, which reiterated the principle in the following words. “... 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 whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with he 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 the court's order. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with he 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 the 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 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. … … ” (Para 15) 5.3 In Rajeshbhai Vaghjibhai Chaudhari Vs State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.8041 of 2016 decided by this Court reiterating the principle came to be confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.538 of 2016 in which, after discussing the powers of the Court, the Division Bench observed to state as under. “Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal position with regard to exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the election matters, if the facts of the present case are considered, it is revealed that the Authorized Officer has rejected the objections raised by the petitioners about inclusion of the names of petitioner Nos. 6 to 101 in the voters list. In the facts of the present case when a new market committee is constituted in September 2014 and thereafter the licences were issued to the concerned traders, we are prima facie of the opinion that Authorized Officer has not committed any jurisdictional error or order of the Authorized Officer cannot be said to be ultra vires or nullity nor the same can be termed as arbitrary. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the learned Single Judge is right in not exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and by observing that the petitioners can file an Election Petition under Rule 28 of the rules. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the learned Single Judge is right in not exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and by observing that the petitioners can file an Election Petition under Rule 28 of the rules. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge and therefore the present appeal is devoid of any merits and accordingly it is dismissed.” (Para 15) “However, we leave it open to the appellants that if the appellants petitioners are aggrieved by the result of election, they can approach the competent authority by raising en election dispute as contemplated under Rule 28 of the Rules. If such petition is filed, it shall be considered by the competent authority independently and uninfluenced by the prima facie findings recorded by this Court in this appeal.” (para 16) 5.4 In a recent decision in Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited Vs State of Gujarat being Letters Patent Appeal No.569 of 2016 decided on 01st July, 2016, wherein reference of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra) was also made, the Division Bench reiterated the principle of non-interference in the election process in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5.5 The proposition that Court would not interfere or interpose itself once the election process is started is stated and reiterated in several decisions of this Court including the decision of Full Bench of this Court in case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited Vs R.D. Doshit [ 2006 (1) GCD 211 ], wherein the Court even while holding that only in exceptional circumstances the Court may be inclined to interfere with the election process, in terms held that inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters are not exceptional circumstance which would justify interference of the Court in the midst of the election. 5.6 The conclusion drawn by Full Bench of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra) are as under. “I. A person whose name is not included in the voters' list can avail benefit of provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules by filing Election Petition. II. As the authority under Rule 28 has wide power to cancel, confirm and amend the election and to direct to hold fresh election in case the election is set aside, remedy under Rule 28 is an efficacious remedy. III. II. As the authority under Rule 28 has wide power to cancel, confirm and amend the election and to direct to hold fresh election in case the election is set aside, remedy under Rule 28 is an efficacious remedy. III. Even though a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable though alternative remedy is available, the powers are to be exercised in of extraordinary or special circumstances such as where the order is ultra vires or nullity and/or ex facie without jurisdiction. The exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such questions are to be decided in an Election Petition under Rule 28 of the Rules.” 5.7 On an attentive reading of the aforesaid law laid down by the Full Bench, it appears to be virtually an absolute proposition laid down that, “The exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such questions are to be decided in an Election Petition under Rule 28 of the Rules.” 5.8 The present case involves challenge to the deletion of name in the voters list by the Election Officer. The ratio in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra) would apply. The order cannot be treated in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 without touching the election process as entertaining the petition itself would amount to interference and interposing with the on-going election process. As far as the present case is concerned, Section 145-U of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 offers such post-election remedy to the petitioner which the petitioner can avail. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, even a strong ground on merit may not be a consideration to interfere with the election process more particularly when it comes to inclusion and/or exclusion of names from the voters list. Such issue has to be necessarily agitated and tried in the election petition or in other post-election remedy which may be available in accordance with law. 13. Yet, another decision dated 23.9.2016 delivered in Special Civil Application No.14344 of 2016 has also clearly opined on this very issue. Such issue has to be necessarily agitated and tried in the election petition or in other post-election remedy which may be available in accordance with law. 13. Yet, another decision dated 23.9.2016 delivered in Special Civil Application No.14344 of 2016 has also clearly opined on this very issue. But, since the observations are almost similar, instead of repeating the same by quoting, the Court would rely upon the same and adopt as a part of judicial discipline and as such, without quoting the same in the present order, this Court is also of the opinion that interference would not be justified moment the program of election is already set into motion. 14. Yet another decision, very recent in time, delivered by another Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 26.8.2020 in Special Civil Application No.10040 of 2020, in which also, same principle is reiterated not to interfere once the election schedule is already declared. The judgment last in line is a decision dated 25.9.2020 in a group of petitions, headed by Special Civil Application No.10863 of 2020 in which also, after analyzing the relevant provision of the Rules and considering the ratio laid down by various decisions, the Coordinate Bench was of the opinion that there is a substantive alternative efficacious remedy available under Rule 28 of the Rules and inclusion and exclusion of names in the voters list cannot be termed as an extraordinary circumstance, warranting interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, in view of such proposition of law laid down as a part of judicial discipline, this Court without deviating from settled proposition, is of the opinion that the petition does not deserve to be entertained. Since the Court has relied upon the said decision of the Coordinate Bench, the relevant observations contained therein are reproduced hereunder : “6. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 28 of the Rules framed under the APMC Act, which read as under: “28. Since the Court has relied upon the said decision of the Coordinate Bench, the relevant observations contained therein are reproduced hereunder : “6. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 28 of the Rules framed under the APMC Act, which read as under: “28. Determination of validity of election.(I) If the validity of any election of a member of the Market Committee is brought in question by any person qualified either to be elected or to vote at the election to which such question refers such person may, within seven days after the date of the declaration of the result of the election, apply in writing (a) to the Director, if the election has been conducted by a person authorised by the Director, to perform the function of an Election Officer, and (b) to the State Government if the election has been conducted by the Director as an Election Officer and (2) On receipt of an application under sub rule (1), the Director, or the State Government, as the case may be, shall, after giving an opportunity to the applicant to be heard and after making such inquiry as he or it as the case may be, deems fit, pass an order confirming or amending the declared result of election or setting the election aside and such order shall be final. 1f the Director or the State Government as the case may be sets aside the election, a date shall be forthwith fixed, and the necessary steps be taken for holding a fresh election for filling up the vacancy of such member.” 7. Now it is well settled proposition of law that the inclusion or exclusion of names in the voters’ list cannot be termed as an extraordinary circumstance warranting interference of the High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and such question could be decided in the Election Petition, which may be tried under Rule 28 of the said Rules. The Full Bench in case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited Vs. R. D. Rohit, Authorized Officer and Cooperative Officer (Marketing), reported in 2006 GCD 211 (Special Civil Application No. No.2489 of 2005 dated 27.4.2005), has specifically held in paragraph 33 as under : - “33. The Full Bench in case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited Vs. R. D. Rohit, Authorized Officer and Cooperative Officer (Marketing), reported in 2006 GCD 211 (Special Civil Application No. No.2489 of 2005 dated 27.4.2005), has specifically held in paragraph 33 as under : - “33. In view of the above discussion, we answer the Reference as under: i. A person whose name is not included in the voters' list can avail benefit of provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules by filing Election Petition. ii. As the authority under Rule 28 has wide power to cancel, confirm and amend the election and to direct to hold fresh election in case the election is set side, remedy under Rule 28 is an efficacious remedy. iii. Even though a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable though alternative remedy is available, the powers are to be exercised in case of extraordinary or special circumstances such as where the order is ultra vires or nullity and/or ex facie without jurisdiction. The exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such questions are to be decided in an Election Petition under Rule 28 of the Rules.” 8. It is also pertinent to note that the Division Bench of this Court in a group of petitions filed by the petitioner – Patel Talshabhai Purabhai Vs. Authorized Officer and Auditor Grade- I, being SCA No.2302 of 2011 and others had also vide the order dated 9.3.2011 dismissed the said petitions on the ground of availability of alternative, efficacious remedy under Rules 28 of the said Rules, relying on the afore-stated ratio laid down by the Full Bench. 9. In the instant case, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 Authorized Officer as the objections raised by the petitioners against the inclusion of the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5 Society in the voters’ list have been rejected by the respondent No. 4. 9. In the instant case, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 Authorized Officer as the objections raised by the petitioners against the inclusion of the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5 Society in the voters’ list have been rejected by the respondent No. 4. The Court, therefore is of the opinion that in view of the aforestated ratio laid down by the Full Bench, the alternative remedy for filing election petition under Rule28 of the said Rules being available to the petitioners, all the petitions deserve to be dismissed on the said ground alone. 10. It is also axiomatic that normally the High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the process of election once the same has already commenced. Beneficial reference of the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Nanhoo Mal and Others Vs. Hiramal & Ors., reported in (1976) 3 SCC 211 ; in case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2001 (8) SCC, 509; and in case of Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors., reported in 2000 (8) SCC 216 may be made in this regard. In the instance case the election process has already begun and the final voters’ list is also published. The present petitioners are not even the contestants in the election. It appears that they had tried to obstruct the election process, by virtue of their being members of the Managing Committee, by raising objections before the respondent No.4, which have not been accepted by the respondent No.4 by passing a detailed order. The present petitions filed after the commencement of the election process and with a view to stall the election therefore could not be entertained, more particularly when an alternative efficacious remedy of filing the election petition under Rule 28 of the said Rules is available to them. 11. So far as the impugned order is concerned, the respondent No.4 Authorized Officer has observed that the members of the Managing Committee of the respondent Jo.5 Society, whose names have been included in the voters’ list, were appointed as such unanimously in the Annual General Meeting of the respondent No.5 Society, and nobody had raised any objection so far. 11. So far as the impugned order is concerned, the respondent No.4 Authorized Officer has observed that the members of the Managing Committee of the respondent Jo.5 Society, whose names have been included in the voters’ list, were appointed as such unanimously in the Annual General Meeting of the respondent No.5 Society, and nobody had raised any objection so far. Merely because the election of the Managing Committee was not held, the said members who have been unanimously appointed as the members of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5 Society could not be deleted from the voters’ list of the Agriculturist Constituency. The Court does not find any illegality in the said observations / findings arrived at by the respondent No. 4. Though much reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the decision of the Single Bench in case of Mandropur (Fatehpur) Jutth Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), it may be noted that in the said case, the issue was whether the Authorized Officer could have made summary inquiry as to whether only elected members could be the eligible voters to be included in the list of voters. In this regard, the Single Bench observed in paragraph 8 as under:- “8. Whether inquiry undertaken in a particular case is summary or not or within the ambit of powers of the Authorized Officer or not is a question of fact to be ascertained in light of the peculiar The brief facts of the case are as under: and aspects of each case. It is the concept of ‘summary inquiry’ and not the factual contents of the summary nature which may be inflexible in law. It has to be judged from case to case whether in light of the attendant subject facts, the inquiry undertaken by the authorized officer is summary or not. When in the present case, the order of exclusion of names from the list of voters is based on the factum noticed that there was no election held to the Managing Committee, the decision can be said to be based on summary inquiry only. What can be more ‘summary’ than to ask whether the persons named to be the voters are elected members and whether election was held of the Managing Committee of which they are shown to be the elected members.” 12. What can be more ‘summary’ than to ask whether the persons named to be the voters are elected members and whether election was held of the Managing Committee of which they are shown to be the elected members.” 12. It is further required to be noted that in paragraph 10 thereof, the Court held that a summary inquiry cannot be equated with final adjudication of facts or issues on merits, and therefore, the petitioners, if so advised, may avail alternative remedy of filing election petition under Rule 28 of the said Rules. Against the said decision of the Single Bench, an Letters Patent Appeal being No.541 of 2016 was preferred by the said petitioner before the Division Bench, and the Division Bench on 22.7.2016 had dismissed the same, without adverting to the issue as to whether only those members who are elected could be the members of the Managing Committee for the purpose of including their names in voters’ list of the Agriculturists Constituency under Section 11(1) (i) of the said Act. It was further observed that the petitioners could avail of an alternative remedy of filing the election petition.” 15. In view of aforesaid observations, since to a substantial extent, the election schedule has processed, this Court would not like to interject the said process. At one flash, no-doubt, it was pointed out by learned counsel that a cryptic order is passed but, the reason which has been assigned is not possible to be construed as invalid reason at this stage. As a result of this, the extraordinary jurisdiction does not deserve to be exercised in this peculiar background of facts and circumstance. Even the petitioner has also approached this Court no so promptly which would also be a relevant circumstance for not exercising the jurisdiction. As said earlier, the petitioner is not remediless and having an alternate and efficacious remedy, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 16. In view of the said decision, Special Civil Application No.12055 of 2020 also stands DISMISSED as not separately argued.