Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 786 (GUJ)

Narendrasinh Rupsinh Chauhan v. State of Gujarat

2021-09-06

A.Y.KOGJE

body2021
ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with prayers as under: “21(A) the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari and/or writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the wrongful inclusion of the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the respondent Nos.5 to 10 societies in the voters' list of agricultural constituency for the elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Balasinor and be pleased to delete their names from the voters' list of agriculturist constituency for the elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Balasinor.” 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner thereafter moved draft amendment, by which following prayer is added, which is as under: “21(AA) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 02-02-2021 passed by the Authorized Officer, annexed at Annexure-H to this petition.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an agriculturist. The petitioner is a member of the Managing Committee of The Shantiniketan Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Dungripura (Pandva) and in that capacity is included at serial no.103 in the voters’ list for the elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Balasinor. The elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Balasinor was declared by the respondent no.2Director on 16.12.2020, according to which, the preliminary voters’ list was published on 02.01.2021, the provisional voters’ list was published on 19.01.2021 and final voters’ list to be published on 02.02.2021. 4. The preliminary voters’ list was published by the respondent no.4Authorized Officer on 02.01.2021 and as far as agricultural constituency is concerned, the name of the society of the petitioner was included in the voters’ list and the name of petitioner was included at Sr. No.103. However, the name of the respondent nos.5 to 10 societies were also included in the voters’ list though they were not eligible. As per Section 11(1)(i) only a primary agricultural credit cooperative society can be included in the voters’ list of agriculturist constituency. No.103. However, the name of the respondent nos.5 to 10 societies were also included in the voters’ list though they were not eligible. As per Section 11(1)(i) only a primary agricultural credit cooperative society can be included in the voters’ list of agriculturist constituency. It is submitted that in order to become a primary agricultural credit cooperative society, only a society which has availed credit as per three tier credit structure can be considered to be a primary agriculture credit cooperative society. It is submitted that the respondent nos.5 to 10 societies have not availed any credit to the three tier credit structure and have not dispensed agricultural credit through the three tier credit structure. The petitioner therefore raised objections against the wrongful inclusion of the respondent nos.5 to 10 societies before the Authorized Officer on 15.01.2021 interalia contending that the said societies have not dispensed agricultural credit through the three tier credit structure and therefore are not eligible to be included in the voters’ list. 5. Pursuant to the objections raised by the petitioner, the Authorized Officer issued notice to the respondent nos.5 to 10 societies on 16.01.2021. The hearing of the objections was undertaken on 17.01.2021 and on that date, the petitioner further submitted its’ objections along with certificate of the Kheda District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Dated 28.12.2020 showing the names of the societies who have availed loans through the three tier structure. The said list of societies does not include the respondent nos.5 to 10 societies. The petitioner also relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble High Court on the issue that only societies which are under the three tier credit structure can be considered to be primary agricultural credit cooperative society and can be included in the voters’ list. 6. However, the Authorized Officer published the provisional voters’ list on 19.01.2021 wherein, the names of the respondent nos.5 to 10 societies are continued the petitioner immediately inquired with the Authorized Officer as to what is the decision on the objection raised by the petitioner. However, the Authorized Officer completely refused to give any decision to the petitioner. 7. Learned advocate Mr. However, the Authorized Officer completely refused to give any decision to the petitioner. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent nos.5 to 10 societies are ineligible to continue in the voters’ list in view of the fact that even as per the case of the respondents, the respondent nos.5 to 10 societies have dispensed agricultural credit from their own funds and not through the three tier credit structure and therefore, as per the settled legal position in view of the amendment in the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1963, they are not eligible to be included in the voters’ list. 8. It is submitted that after filing of the present petition, the petitioner has received copy of the order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the respondent No.4-Authorized Officer rejecting the objections of the petitioner against the inclusion of respondent Nos.5 to 10 societies in the voters list of agriculturist constituency for the election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Balasinor. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Authorized Officer is contrary to the well settled legal position that primary agriculture credit cooperative society would be one which has availed and dispensed credit under the three tier credit structure and societies which have not dispensed agricultural credit through three tier credit system, would not be entitled to be included in the voters list of agriculturist constituency. The judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited v/s. State of Gujarat clearly lays down the proposition that only those societies which have availed and dispensed agricultural credit through the three tier system would be eligible to be included in the voters list. He submits that the Authorized Officer has acted contrary to the well settled position and has completely ignored the said binding judgment though the same was cited before the Authorized Officer. The order of the Authorized Officer is therefore required to be quashed and set aside. 9. It is submitted that the election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Balasinor which was declared by way of election program dated 16.12.2020 was stalled because of the sudden outbreak of Covid Pandemic in the second wave and the election was stopped from March 2021. The order of the Authorized Officer is therefore required to be quashed and set aside. 9. It is submitted that the election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Balasinor which was declared by way of election program dated 16.12.2020 was stalled because of the sudden outbreak of Covid Pandemic in the second wave and the election was stopped from March 2021. It is submitted that thereafter, the respondent No.2-Director by way of revised schedule dated 28.07.2021 has restarted the election and as per the said revised schedule, voting is to take place on 08.09.2021. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted urgent relief considering that the election is underway. 10. It is further submitted that in the present case, the respondent Nos.5 to 10 societies have admittedly not dispensed agricultural credit through three tier credit structure. The respondent Nos.5 to 10 in their respective affidavits have clearly admitted that the societies have credited their own funds by accepting deposits from their members and from such funds have granted loan to the members of the society. One such averment is at paragraph No.3.4 page86 to 88 of the affidavit in reply. Therefore, it is admitted position that the respondent Nos.5 to 10 societies have not dispensed agricultural credit through three tier credit structure and hence, they are not eligible to be included in the voters list of agriculturist constituency. The private respondents have stated that the byelaws of the society provide that the society can credit funds from their own sources by accepting deposits however, the same does not mean that credit structure provided in Section 2(7A) is given a gobye. The society may create is own funds but in order to make them eligible for being included in the agriculturist constituency, the society must have dispensed agricultural credit through three tier credit structure as has been held by this Hon’ble Court in above referred judgments. 11. It is submitted that no reason whatsoever has been given by the Authorized Officer in the impugned order and the impugned order is absolutely cryptic and none of the contentions raised by the petitioner are dealt with and it is not even recorded as to whether the Authorized Officer has verified the details of the agricultural credit dispensed by the respondent Nos.5 to 10 societies and mechanically the objections raised by the petitioner are rejected. 12. 12. It is submitted that provisional voters list was published on 19.01.2021, whereas final list was published on 02.02.2021. Rule 8(1A) provides that after the revised draft list for voters (provisional list of voters) is published by the Authorized Officer, the Authorized Officer shall call for objections against the new names entered in the revised draft list. Therefore, only those objections can be received and considered by the Authorized Officer which are new names entered in the revised draft list (provisional voters list). In the present case, the Authorized Officer has passed the impugned order on 02.02.2021 i.e. at the time of publication of final list of voters. Meaning thereby he has considered the objections after the revised draft list of voters is published. The Authorized Officer had no jurisdiction to consider any objection with regards to the names included in the first list of voters (preliminary list of voters) and hence, the order passed by the Authorized Officer is clearly without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State submitted that the main grievance of the writ applicant is in regard to dispensation of agricultural credit must be made as per the Cooperative Structure given u/s 2(7A) the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, by which dispensation must be made from the Central/District Cooperative Bank and State Cooperative Bank. And in that regard relied on the (1) Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkar Mandli Ltd., v/s. State of Gujarat (SCA 2128 of 2016) reported in 2016 JX (Guj) 946, & (2) in case of Rampura Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd Thru Chairman Hasmukhbhai Ambalal Patel v/s. Authorized Officer and Election Officer (Marketing), reported in 2019 JX(Guj) 154. In regard to the above it is submitted that in the present case, the Respondent No. 5 to 10 Societies were Primary Agriculture Societies and dispensing the agricultural credit to their members from their own funds and accumulations, and same is reflecting in their bylaws. Thus, as per section 11(1)(i), of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963, the Respondent No. 5 to 10 is the “Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies. Thus, as per section 11(1)(i), of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963, the Respondent No. 5 to 10 is the “Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies. Also they falls under the Cooperative structure, but dispensing of Agriculture credit to its Members from their own funds, which in consonance with the bylaws of the respective societies, therefore, the Respondent No. 5 to 10, societies is falls under the Primary Agriculture Credit Societies, and falls under the cooperative 3 tier structure, but only dispensing of agriculture credit at their own funds, does not debar the societies to be included in voter list as per section 11(1)(i) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963. That after the amendment Act, 2015, the dispensation of Agriculture credit in the market area is an essential factor. And for that relying on the judgment dated 15.03.2016 render in case of Shree Abhay Gpalak Vividh Karyakari Sahkari Mandli Ltd v/s. State of Gujarat, before this Hon’ble High Court in Special Application No. 2000 of 2016 & allied matter (Para 25 to 31). In which it is elaborately stated the dispensing of Agricultural credit. 14. It is submitted that the Petitioner have a alternative remedy under the Rule 28 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965.– FB Judgment–Daheda Group Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited v/s. R.D. Rohit, Authorized Officer and Cooperative Officer (Marketing) reported in (2006 GCD 1211) Judgment of coordinate Bench–1) SCA 6383 OF 2020 dt. 21.08.2020) 2) SCA 11822 OF 2019 DT.. 25.11.2019, 3) LPA 383 OF 2018 IN SCA 3167 OF 2018 DT. 19.04.2018. 15. Learned advocate Mr. V.C.Vaghela appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.7, 9 and 10 submitted that respondent Nos.7 to 9 societies are primary agriculture credit cooperative societies dispensing agriculture credit in the market area. The bye laws of the society produced by the deponent at pg.no.178 provides as to how the society can raise funds to provide loans to its members. It is provided in the bye laws that the funds can be raised from shares, deposits, loans, gifts and admission fee. It is submitted that due to political reasons the district co operative bank has not admitted the deponent societies as members of the District Cooperative Bank and therefore it was necessary for the deponent society to create funds from other sources. It is submitted that due to political reasons the district co operative bank has not admitted the deponent societies as members of the District Cooperative Bank and therefore it was necessary for the deponent society to create funds from other sources. The respondent Nos.7 to 9 societies therefore invited deposits from its members and after having obtained deposits granted loans to its members. Therefore, the respondent Nos.7 to 9 societies are primary agriculture credit cooperative societies dispensing agriculture credit to its members as provided under section 11(1)(i) of the act. 16. It is submitted that section 11 provides that only primary agriculture credit cooperative societies dispensing agriculture credit shall be admitted as voters. It does not provide that the dispensation of agriculture credit should be only through 3 tier credit structure. The conditions laid down in section 11(1)(i) is that the society should be primary agriculture credit cooperative society dispensing agriculture credit. The deponent societies are primary agriculture credit cooperative society and are dispensing agriculture credit. 17. The contention of the Petitioner that the authorized officer did not decide the objection at the stage of publication of provisional list is also incorrect because the objection was filed on 15/01/2021 and as per the election programmed the provisional voters list was to be published on 19/01/2021 therefore the objection of the Petitioner was considered by the authorized officer and the hearing of the objecting was filed on 17/01/2021. The objector could not satisfied the authorized officer with regard to its objection and therefore the authorized officer continued the names of the deponent societies in the provisional voters list published on 19/01/2021. Once the authorized officer having not accepted the objection of the Petitioner the grievance if any of the objector could be redressed only by way of election petition under rule28 of the APMC, Rules. Therefore, the Petitioners remedy under rule 28 of the APMC, Rules. 18. The Petitioners contentions that the order of the authorized officer is without jurisdiction is incorrect because the authorized officer has decided the objection of the Petitioner and have given a finding of fact. Therefore, the Petitioners remedy under rule 28 of the APMC, Rules. 18. The Petitioners contentions that the order of the authorized officer is without jurisdiction is incorrect because the authorized officer has decided the objection of the Petitioner and have given a finding of fact. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the authorized officer then the Petitioner is raising a disputed question of fact and the disputed question of facts may not be decided in a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India but it can be decided in an Election Petition under Rule28. Therefore, the Petitioners contention that the authorized officer has travelled beyond his jurisdiction is incorrect. The authorized officer has exercise the powers vested in him and have decided the objection of the Petitioner and therefore no extra ordinary case has been made out by the Petitioner for interference by this Hon’ble court. 19. Learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel appearing for respondent Nos.5,6 and 8 submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in case of Shri Sant Satguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sanstha and Ors. reported in 2001(8)SCC 509 that breach of or noncompliance of mandatory provision with rules during the preparation of electorate roll can be challenged in election petition under the provisions of Maharastra Cooperative Society Act. It is further held that where, an election process has started, disputes has to be agitated by way of election petition only and that preparation of voters list is a part of election process voters list for constituting a managing committee of a specified society and such disputed can be resolved by way of election petition. 20. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. It appears that the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered in SCA No.2128 of 2016 and allied matters wherein the objection was raised against the societies which were not primary agriculture credit cooperative societies and the loan transaction shown by the said societies were bogus and sham. The authorized officer found substance in the objection and thereby deleted the names of the society as not being primary agriculture credit cooperative societies and the dispensation of agriculture credit being not genuine. The authorized officer found substance in the objection and thereby deleted the names of the society as not being primary agriculture credit cooperative societies and the dispensation of agriculture credit being not genuine. Therefore, the said societies challenged the order of the authorized officer before the Hon’ble High Court and the coordinate bench of this Hon’ble court has upheld the decision of the authorized officer and dismissed the Petition on merits stating that the decision of the authorized officer does not warrant interference. While dismissing the Petitions the Hon’ble Court also came to the conclusion that the societies were not primary agriculture credit cooperative societies and the dispensation of agriculture credit shown by them was bogus and sham. The same judgment was challenged in appeal before the division bench and even the division bench concurred with the findings given by the Ld. Single judge and further held that the challenge to the exclusion or inclusion can be made only after the elections are over in an election petition under rule28 of the rules. 21. The second judgment relied by the Petitioner was SCA No.3801 of 2019 and allied matters wherein also the coordinate bench relying on the judgment rendered in SCA No.2128 of 2016 dismissed the Petition with a finding that no extra ordinary case has been made out by the Petitioner therefore the Petition was dismissed. Whereas in the present Petition the objector has raised an objection that the dispensation of agriculture credit by the deponent societies is not under 3 tire structure. Section 11(1)(i) nowhere provides that the dispensation of agriculture credit should only be under 3 tire structure. It only provides that there should be dispensation of agriculture credit. Therefore the authorized officer while deciding the objection found that the dispensation of agriculture credit by the deponent societies is genuine and therefore did not accept the objection of the Petitioner. Having failed before the authorized officer the Petitioners have filed the present case stating that the deponent societies are not primary agriculture credit cooperative societies and have not dispensed agriculture credit under 3 tire system and the order of the authorized officer is without jurisdiction. The authorized officer has rejected the objection at the stage of publication of provisional voters list and therefore there is no illegality committed by the authorized officer. The authorized officer has rejected the objection at the stage of publication of provisional voters list and therefore there is no illegality committed by the authorized officer. Therefore the question with regard to dispensation of agriculture credit if at all questioned by the Petitioner that it is a disputed question of fact and therefore the present petition is not required to be entertained. The authorized officer has come to the conclusion that the objection raised by objector is incorrect and the societies have dispensed agriculture credit. 22. The main contention raised about 'Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society' is based on the Amendment brought in Section 11 of APMC Act, 1963, where Phrase “Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society' was inserted in this section. The argument is also based on the decision of the Court in a group of petition being Special Civil Application No.2000 of 2016 & allied matters in case of “SHREE ABHAY GOPALAK VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED v/s. STATE OF GUJARAT” dated 15-03-2016. On basis of this judgment, it is contended that to recognize as society as Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society, the parameters is the 3tier Pattern of Credit dispensation. 23. The closer look at the aforementioned judgment does not indicate so. It appears the attempt in that petition was to include Cooperative Credit Society involved in dairy framing activity in the definition of Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society, Para 7 & 8 of the judgment reads as under: “7. The controversy in the present group of petitions is concerning preparation of voters list for the first constituency falling within section 11(1) (i) i.e. as regards election of eight agriculturists who will be the members of the market committee with other members to be elected and nominated as provided in section 11 to constitute the market committee. 8. As per section 11(1)(i) of the Act before it was amended by Amendment Act, 2015, except the cooperative marketing societies and cooperative milk producing societies dispensing cooperative agricultural societies, credit all were entitled to elect eight agriculturists to be the members of Market Committee. 8. As per section 11(1)(i) of the Act before it was amended by Amendment Act, 2015, except the cooperative marketing societies and cooperative milk producing societies dispensing cooperative agricultural societies, credit all were entitled to elect eight agriculturists to be the members of Market Committee. Now, by Amendment Act, 2015, clause (I) of section 11(1) is substituted by new clause (i) whereunder it is provided that eight agriculturists whose names are enlisted in the voters’ list published by the Election Commission of India for the market area shall be elected by members of managing committee of the primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area. Thus, only Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies are made entitled to elect eight agriculturists.” 24. Thereafter, this Court has stated in Para 16 as under: 16. The Court, having heard the learned advocates for the parties, finds that the legislature has provided for constitution of market committee by representatives of different classes. First amongst them is selection of eight agriculturists by election as per section 11(1)(i) of the Act by the cooperative societies of the type provided in section 11(1) (i) of the Act. Section 11(1)(i) as it originally stood permitted all cooperative societies dispensing agricultural credit, to elect eight agriculturists and for such purpose, the members of their managing committee formed electorate on their inclusion in the voters’ list prepared as provided in the Rules. In the year 2006, the legislature debarred the cooperative marketing societies and Milk Produce Cooperative Societies from being part of the electorate to elect eight agriculturists. It appears that at the time of election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Siddhpur somewhere in the year 2010, dispute had arisen as to whether the Milk Producing Cooperative Societies could be included in the voters’ list of agriculturists’ constituency on exclusion of animal husbandry and animal husbandry products from the schedule of agriculture produce. The objector whose application was turned down against inclusion of Milk Producing Societies in voters’ list had preferred special civil application no.13689 of 2009 before this Court and Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that since the animal husbandry and animal husbandry products were taken out from the schedule of agricultural produce, the societies dealing with the animal husbandry and animal husbandry products could not form part of the electorate................ 25. 25. The Court then proceeded with note of approval to the submissions made on behalf of the State in Para 25 as under: “25. In the context of the Act, it appears that the insertion of primary agricultural credit by Amendment Act of 2015 in section 11(1)(i) is to make clear the intention of the legislature that it is only the societies which have their main object to do principal business of providing financial assistance to their members for agricultural purpose or for the activities connected with the agriculture will be entitled to elect 8 agriculturists from the agriculturists constituency and to make such intention more clear, the words ‘agricultural credit’ are repeated in the phrase “primary agricultural credit’. As rightly submitted by the learned Addl. A.G. Mr. Jani that the Amendment Act of 2015 has changed entire scenario. The Court finds that in view of the Amendment Act, 2015, judgment rendered in the case of Rameshbhai Ganeshbhai Chaudhari (supra) could not be of any help to the petitioners. Therefore, even if the classification done by the Registrar is not to be resorted to determine whether a particular society is primary agricultural credit society or not, the intention of the societies could be well gathered from their bye laws whether their main object is to do principal business of providing financial accommodation for agricultural purposes or for the purposes connected with the agriculture activities.” 26. Ultimately, in Para 28, the Court has held as under: “28. When sec. 11(1)(i) now requires only primary agricultural credit cooperative societies dispensing credit in the market area to elect 8 agriculturists for the purpose of constitution of market area, it is in furtherance of the object of the Act and, therefore, only those societies with prime object of providing agricultural credit could be said to be eligible to be included in the voters list. It is therefore not possible to accept the argument of the learned advocates for the petitioners societies that the Amendment Act 2015 has widened horizon to include all agricultural cooperative societies dispensing agricultural credits. If all societies with one of the objects of dispensing agricultural credit are intended to be included without any exception, there was no the words“ primary, agricultural, need to incorporate credit” before the words “ cooperative societies” in section 11(1)(i) of the Act. If all societies with one of the objects of dispensing agricultural credit are intended to be included without any exception, there was no the words“ primary, agricultural, need to incorporate credit” before the words “ cooperative societies” in section 11(1)(i) of the Act. The words “primary agriculture credit” therefore do not meant to be read as a simple adjective noun without any meaning. The legislature do not amend the laws just to beautify the language. Use of the words “agriculture credit” once again while amending section 11(1)(i) of the Act by Amendment Act of 2015, and prefixing word “primary” before the words, “agricultural credit” makes the intention of the legislature more clear to give unequivocal indication that none except the societies which have prime object to do principal business of advancing finance for agricultural purpose and for the purposes connected with the agriculture activities could be included in the voters’ list for first constituency.” 27. In view of the aforesaid, Court is of the opinion that the judgment of this Court in case of SHREE ABHAY GOPALAK (supra), does not support the contention of the petitioner that the only or effective parameters to decide the character of Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society is dispensing of credit in Three tier system and that such definition will have application to the facts of eh case. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce only relevant para from Affidavit of one such respondent Credit Society, as the Affidavits of each Respondent Credit Society is almost identical and have remain unconverted. “3.3 The deponent states that Section11(1)(i) provides that 10 agriculturists having land such are to be elected by the members of managing committee of primary agricultural credit cooperative societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area. It is submitted that the deponent society has been registered in the year 2014 and since then it is dispensing agricultural credit. It is submitted that in the last election of APMC, Balasinor the names of members of managing committee of deponent society was included in the voters list of Balasinor APMC and the members of the society had taken part in the election and no one had raised objection against the inclusion of names of the deponent society in the voters list of agriculturist constituency for Balasinor constituency. 3.4 It is submitted that society is dispensing agricultural credit every year to the members of the society. It is submitted that byelaws of the society are registered and bye law no.4(1) of the bye laws provides that the society can create funds from the below mentioned sources: (a) from shares (1) from members (2) from Government (b) from deposit (1) from members (2) from non members of the area of the operation (c) from loans (d) from gifts (e) admission fee Since due to political reasons the District Cooperative Banks was not ready to grant loans to the deponent society therefore the society created its own fund by accepting deposits from its members and have granted loans to the needy members of the society. It is submitted that the society is dispensing agriculture credit every year and the accounts of the society are audited every year. No objection has been raised by the auditor from dispensing agriculture credit from the society. It is submitted therefore the objections raised by the petitioner is not tenable. It is submitted that the authorized officer pursuant to the declaration of election programme had asked by letter dated 21-12-2020 to forward the names of the members of the managing committee along with the documents showing dispensation of agricultural credit. The deponent society had produced the necessary documents to the authorized officer on 28-12-2020.” 28. The reference to the byelaws of one such Respondent Credit Society especially relating to the objective and provision relating to corpus would go on to the indicate factually, the area of operation of the Credit Society and apparently in consonance with the requirement to give it a characteristic of an Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society. 29. The another issue raised is on the basis of No Scope for petitioner to challenge the order and lack of Jurisdiction of Authorized Officer to pass the order. This argument is to be viewed by taking into consideration the provision of Rule-8 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965, more particularly, Sub-Rule-5 of Rule-8. Rule-8 is reproduced as under: “8. Provisional and final publication of lists of voters. This argument is to be viewed by taking into consideration the provision of Rule-8 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965, more particularly, Sub-Rule-5 of Rule-8. Rule-8 is reproduced as under: “8. Provisional and final publication of lists of voters. (1) As soon as a list of voters is prepared under rule 5, it shall be published by the authorised officer by affixing a copy thereof at the office of the market committee and at some conspicuous place in the principal market yard in the market area along with a notice stating that any person whose name is not entered in the list of voters and who claims that his name should be entered therein or any person who thinks that his name or the name of some other person has been wrongly entered therein or has not been correctly entered, may, within fourteen days from the date of the publication of the notice, apply to the authorised officer for an amendment of the list of voters. [(1A) After receiving applications if any, under sub-rule (1) a revised draft list of voters shall be published by the authorised officer by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of Agricultural Produce Market Committee and at some conspicuous place in the principal market yard of the market area, alongwith a notice stating that any person who wishes to raise any objection against any new name entered in this list, may apply within seven days from the date of publication of this notice to the authorised officer for an amendment in the revised draft list of voters. (2) If any application is received under [sub-rule (1A), the authorised officer shall decide the same and shall cause to be prepared and published the final list of voters, after making such amendments therein as may be necessary in pursuance of the decision given by him on the application. The final list shall be prepared at least thirty days before the date fixed for the nomination of candidates for the election.” 30. In the facts of this case, the Primary Voters' List was published on 02-01-2021 when the name of the Respondent Credit Society were included on 15-01-2021. The petitioner raised objection to such inclusions. Authorized Officer issued Notice to Respondent and hearing took place on 17-01-2021. In the facts of this case, the Primary Voters' List was published on 02-01-2021 when the name of the Respondent Credit Society were included on 15-01-2021. The petitioner raised objection to such inclusions. Authorized Officer issued Notice to Respondent and hearing took place on 17-01-2021. The list of Provisional Voters' was published on 19-01-2021 indicating the objections were considered but not accepted and therefore, the names of the Respondent Credit Society continued. In the opinion of the Court that when the objections were raised, considered and therefore, also the names have continued. Thereafter, only Scope to object is against the inclusion of a new name in the list that is the Scheme of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. Thereafter, the issue if at all is required to be raised, the same has to be under Rule28. 31. The Full Bench decision of this Court case of “DAHEDA GROUP SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED v/s. R.D.ROHIT,AUTHO.OFFICER & CO. OPERATIVE OFFICER (MARKETING) passed in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2489 of 2005 dated 27/04/2005, wherein in Para32 and 33, it is held as under: “32.We have gone through the aforesaid decisions closely. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the principles laid down therein. The sum and substance of those decisions apply to a situation where this Court would like to entertain a petition on the foundation that the order is ultra vires and/or without jurisdiction and/or is violating principles of natural justice. Thus, in an exceptional case, this Court can exercise the power of judicial review, which is a basic structure of the situation in such cases more particularly, in the election process. One thing is clear that this Court ordinarily would not like to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution when the process of election has been set in motion even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. It was held that the proper remedy is by way of election petition before the Election Tribunal. 33. In view of the above discussion, Reference as under: i. A we answer the 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. It was held that the proper remedy is by way of election petition before the Election Tribunal. 33. In view of the above discussion, Reference as under: i. A we answer the 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. 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.” 32. In the opinion of the Court, the factual matrix indicated herein above is also pertaining to inclusions of the Respondent Credit Society in the list of Voter in Agriculture Constituency and therefore, Court is not inclined to interfere with the ongoing election programme. 33. Moreover, nothing is indicated on facts to make out an extraordinary or special circumstances, so as to warrant immediate interference of this Court by invoking Article226 of the Constitution of India. 34. In view of the aforesaid discussion on the ground of alternative remedy, the Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. The observations thus made to deal with contentions raised may not come in way of the petitioner, if the petitioner chooses to avail such alternative remedy. 35. In view of the aforesaid, this petition deserves to and is hereby dismissed. 36. In view of the order passed in the main matter, the Civil Application does not survive and stand disposed of accordingly.